English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

15:00

@DamkerngT. Usually there's a space before the apostrophe. — snailplane 4 mins ago

sobbing -- I can't fix my comment.

Hmm...

I just got another theory.

About suggest something to someone, I mean.

Anonymous

You can delete the old one and post a new one.

Anonymous

Then I can delete my comment.

Damkerng T.

Ahh... I always forget that I can do that!

I think it's because it's possible that we might suggest someone to another someone, so we need the to.

> *I suggest him her.

That's confusing--who is suggested to whom?

> I give him that.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That's not a good sentence.

Damkerng T.

That's what I meant. It's not a good sentence, so we need the to.

Anonymous

15:09

Or, we need the to, so it's not a good sentence. :-)

Damkerng T.

While many verbs could work fine, without to.

My theory is, we need to for every verb that a person could be the direct object.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Many verbs participate in the dative alternation.

Anonymous

> I gave him her.

Damkerng T.

That is a less than likely sentence, I think.

Anonymous

It seems grammatical to me.

Anonymous

15:12

You could argue that it would only appear in conditions where the animacy of her is reduced, that is, she is treated like property

Damkerng T.

I mean, it's less than likely that anyone would really say it.

Anonymous

I don't see why not.

Anonymous

But then, you rejected my previous arguments from animacy distinctions :-)

Damkerng T.

I think the term animacy is the same as my idea about "a person is the direct object".

Anonymous

You prefer "I gave her to him"

Damkerng T.

15:14

Yes.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I was trying to relate it to your idea.

Anonymous

Oh, hey.

Anonymous

I should probably note

Anonymous

I think "I gave him her" requires you to stress her

Damkerng T.

Ah, that makes sense.

Just like: "I suggest to you Jane."

Anonymous

15:15

Kind of like: I turned it on ⇔ *I turned on it

Anonymous

But "I turned on it" is okay.

Damkerng T.

nods

Oh, it still sounds a little weird to me. turned on it.

Perhaps I haven't heard it enough times.

Anonymous

Personal pronouns are usually unstressed.

Anonymous

There are a lot of conditions where words can only come at the end of a sentence stressed.

Damkerng T.

I mean, even when the it is stressed.

curious

Anonymous

15:17

That is, *"You're thinking the same thing I'm" because am must be stressed and stressed words can't take clitic forms

Anonymous

"I turned on it" is the same thing. (Assuming you're using the phrasal verb turn on here, and not simply turning away from it)

Damkerng T.

Wait, don't tell me that it's fine to say "the same thing I AM" instead.

Anonymous

But we don't mark the difference in stress in writing

Anonymous

"You're thinking the same thing I am."

Anonymous

You don't need to heavily stress it, no :-)

Damkerng T.

15:18

Hah! So it's fine?

Anonymous

"You're thinking the same thing I am" is fine.

Anonymous

"You're thinking the same thing i AM" is silly.

Damkerng T.

That's a little weird, though.

Anonymous

Post-auxiliary ellipsis (PAE) leaves am as the head of the verb phrase, so it can't be reduced: "You're thinking the same thing I am [thinking]"

Anonymous

If you reduce it, you have to say the final thinking at the end.

Damkerng T.

15:20

Yes, I think that's what I usually heard.

Anonymous

Hooray!

Damkerng T.

?

Anonymous

That you agree with that part of what I said, although you disagree with something unspecified

Anonymous

I'm always happy when someone agrees with at least one thing I said :-)

Damkerng T.

I would even say that "Are you're thinking what I'm thinking?" is probably more common (in those things I've heard).

hellodear2

15:22

I want to buy a laptop with the following requirements:

Daily use
1 TB Hard-disk
4-6 GB RAM
i5(4th gen) processor
1GB graphic card
Windows 7 Basic
<= 50,000 INR

@snailboat

@DamkerngT.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Oh, you mean without PAE? But PAE is fine.

Anonymous

"You're eating the same thing I am!" "He's going as fast as she is!" And so on.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Yes, I think I'm not very familiar with PAE.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Also called VP ellipsis

hellodear2

Are you talking about vegetables?

Damkerng T.

15:24

@hellodear2 I haven't bought any new PC for a while.

Anonymous

@hellodear2 Hooray

hellodear2

which company should prefer?

Anonymous

I have no idea.

hellodear2

@snailboat hah!! thanks for Hoo-ray!

Anonymous

@hellodear2 You're welcome!

hellodear2

15:25

@snailboat

Damkerng T.

Shouldn't it be cheaper nowadays?

Anonymous

@hellodear2 Haha, that one's kind of mean!

Damkerng T.

But as I said, I haven't bought a new one for a while already.

Anonymous

I put together a computer a year ago.

Anonymous

For about $800

hellodear2

15:26

:'( that means no help?

Damkerng T.

I think it should be cheaper if it is a desktop PC.

Anonymous

@hellodear2 I haven't really bought an assembled computer before

Damkerng T.

For a laptop, I have no idea.

Anonymous

Except for laptops.

hellodear2

Have you watched The amazing spider man-2 ?

Anonymous

15:27

Yes.

Anonymous

Wait, no.

Damkerng T.

Nope.

Anonymous

I watched the old Spider-Man two.

Anonymous

Not the Amazing one. That's the new one, right?

Damkerng T.

I've seen it on Apple Store, I think.

hellodear2

15:27

Is there any old spider man -2?

Anonymous

Is it good?

Anonymous

There was a trilogy of Spider-Man movies in the 2000s.

Anonymous

I saw the second one of those.

hellodear2

Oh, in 2000s?

Anonymous

It had Doctor Octopus.

Damkerng T.

15:28

It looks like it should be good.

hellodear2

That means this movie is too old?

Damkerng T.

Yes, I like the first and the second ones.

hellodear2

Just a re-make I must say?

Anonymous

No?

Anonymous

I don't think it's a remake.

Damkerng T.

15:28

The remake (Amazing) one is also good.

Anonymous

I think it's a different Spider-Man movie. But they started over with the Amazing ones, so they call them 1 and 2 instead of 4 and 5

Anonymous

Er, 4 and 5.

hellodear2

But I have seen spider man-2 today only. And it is released last week.

Anonymous

In my mind, it's still #5. :-)

Damkerng T.

Usually, I will see a new movie 6 months after most people. :D

hellodear2

15:29

So this is 4th movie?

of spider man?

Damkerng T.

I'd say #5 too.

hellodear2

@snailboat

Anonymous

@hellodear2 I don't get it.

hellodear2

Because of this confusion.

Anonymous

Ahh

hellodear2

15:31

I left the earth.

Damkerng T.

Oh, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is still a pre-order on Apple Store (iTunes). It's $19.99.

See, I think I'm gonna wait for another six-month.

Anonymous

I'll watch it whenever my friend makes me. :-)

Stack Exchange

snailboat has removed Mistu4u from the list of this room's owners.

Damkerng T.

I think there are good chances that you'll watch it before I can. :D

Stack Exchange

snailboat has removed RegDwigнt from the list of this room's owners.

Anonymous

15:34

Thanks, Stack Exchange!

Stack Exchange

snailboat has added skullpatrol to the list of this room's owners.

Anonymous

Should I add anyone else?

Anonymous

I don't think anyone uses the "room owner" functionality... :-)

Damkerng T.

I don't even really know the difference, if any. :D

Maybe I can pin a star, and that's about it.

Anonymous

I'll just leave it as it is, then

Fantasier

15:39

A dialog popped up, telling me to charge the battery of this laptop. I was surprised since I plugged the cable just a little while before. Then I realised I didn't stick the other end of the cable into the computer. -_- Stupid me.

Anonymous

Hehe, oh no!

Damkerng T.

Ah... that happened to me often enough too.

But usually, I blamed the plug.

Fantasier

What!? The table? The cable! I'm crazy.

Damkerng T.

> Say this dialog, “Do you know him?” “Not to speak to.”

I don't know what it means, though I think I can guess what it means.

Fantasier

I don't know either.

Anonymous

15:43

@DamkerngT. What do you think it means?

Damkerng T.

Maybe "Don't have to speak to him."

Or "Don't speak to him."

Or "He's someone we don't speak of."

Fantasier

I think it means 'don't know that much to speak to him'

Anonymous

@Fantasier Yeah, you probably haven't really ever talked to him

Damkerng T.

Ah, that's possible.

Oh, it means that!

Anonymous

Yes

Damkerng T.

15:45

So, it's "Not (know enough) to speak to (him)."?

How common is it?

Does it sound formal or anything?

Anonymous

It's not common.

Anonymous

I can't characterize it.

Anonymous

I don't think it sounds especially formal

Anonymous

It might be more common for other speakers, for people who aren't me :-)

Anonymous

(Everyone uses different phrases.)

Anonymous

15:48

I would never say it.

Damkerng T.

Shouldn't "speak to" mean "to criticize"?

Anonymous

No

Damkerng T.

It's a fixed phrase, maybe?

Anonymous

When you speak to someone, you're, well, speaking with them :-) Possibly more unilaterally, but maybe not.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. It is kind of a strange phrase, isn't it?

Damkerng T.

15:49

nods

It's strange for me indeed.

Without a good hint in the context, I think I might not be able to catch it.

Couldn't find it in dictionaries either.

Anonymous

> You know Mr. Vanderbilt intimately, I take it?
> Not intimately, but well enough to speak to.

Anonymous

It's like that.

Damkerng T.

And what does this "speak to" mean?

Anonymous

How well do you know him? Not well enough to speak to [him]. Do you know him? Not [well enough] to speak to [him]

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Talk to.

Anonymous

15:53

Have a conversation with.

Damkerng T.

Ahh... I see.

Anonymous

Don't take what I said as strict ellipsis, though, it's just an explanation by way of paraphrase

Anonymous

It's some sort of ellipsis, at least originally

Damkerng T.

But for this one, understand it as ellipsis makes sense.

Anonymous

I assume.

Anonymous

15:54

Yes

Anonymous

That's what I think.

Anonymous

0

Q: Nothing could be less like

What is the meaning of "nothing could be less like ..." structure? Sometimes I see it with a "than", and other times without "than". Say this example - Nothing could be less like A If we go by the literal meaning, it means to me that everything is similar to A. Am I right? Nothing cou...

phrase-meaning

Anonymous

I wrote those sentences as an answer. I couldn't think of how to explain it further.

Anonymous

They were not adequate to the task!

Damkerng T.

This one I couldn't understand it without thinking.

(I mean, analyzing it.)

Fantasier

15:59

Me too

But I think it's literal.

Damkerng T.

I think I need to analyze it too, even when I hear it in Thai.

Fantasier

ไม่มีอะไรจะเหมือน A น้อยไปกว่า B อีกแล้ว? (The same sentence in Thai); well, yeah, I think I'd have to analyse too.

Damkerng T.

Exactly that! :-)

Fantasier

0

Q: "No one would understand which kind of products I'm talking about." is it correct

I do not trust products that claim "all natural ingredients" because this phrase can mean almost anything. [that claim "all natural ingredients"] is essential because If is not stated, no one will understand which kind of products I'm talking about. Is the sentence "No one will unders...

sentence-construction which

Ah, I know the asker!

He is a junior of my friend at Bodindecha.

Damkerng T.

Eh?

Hah!

Fantasier

16:03

I don't really get what he meant by 'kind of structure' though.

Damkerng T.

Oh, I haven't thought that he's a Thai before.

Now reading his name again, I think it's a Thai name indeed.

@Fantasier Is it a clause or a phrase, and what kind of a clause or a phrase, maybe?

Fantasier

I think it's a noun phrase (according to his framework) with a relative clause inside.

Damkerng T.

I think which kind of products I'm talking about is a noun phrase.

Fantasier

Oh well, yes.

Because it has no 'main' verb.

Damkerng T.

Invert it back and we'd get: I'm talking about (which) kind of products.

Fantasier

16:09

Yeah.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I know how this kind of clause works, but I don't know how to explain it carefully enough.

Fantasier

Assuming it's not a past story telling or a reported speech, I think would here is a less definite form of will.

So both versions work fine.

Damkerng T.

> ... because If it is not stated, no one will understand which kind of products I'm talking about.

I think that fix is all it needs.

Fantasier

I would personally write if not stated because I'm lazy :P

Damkerng T.

Oh, me too. :D

It sounds like he was trying to make a general statement. I think is and will is okay.

I think I might use weren't and would have understood to talk about a specific product.

Fantasier

16:17

I think there is one comma splice (in the question), but I don't really care about those punctuation styles anyway.

Damkerng T.

I see.

Oh, understand "Not to speak to." as "I know not to speak to him." is also a good idea!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That doesn't sound right to me.

Damkerng T.

Eh? It sounds quite similar to our original version, I think.

It just drops enough, I think.

> I know not (enough) to speak to him.

confused

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. "I know not to speak to him" means "I know that I shouldn't speak to him"

Damkerng T.

Ah, I see.

Thank you!

Anonymous

16:34

I left an answer.

Fantasier

@DamkerngT. Oh, yeah, I've been kind of curious. How do I spell your name (Damkerng) in Thai?

Damkerng T.

Eh?

ดำเกิง

:D

@snailboat I voted up an answer.

Fantasier

Looks like I got it right. Yay

Anonymous

Oh, it's so much shorter in Thai script!

Damkerng T.

Heehee. That's quite true!

Anonymous

16:36

That happens with Japanese, too. 千と千尋の神隠し is Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi, for example

Damkerng T.

Oh, its romaji is very long.

(Btw, is it romaji or romanji?)

Anonymous

Romaji.

Damkerng T.

Ah, thanks!

Anonymous

Strictly, rōmaji.

Anonymous

It's a noun-noun compound in a modifier-head relationship.

Anonymous

16:38

Rōma is "Rome". Ji is "character"

Damkerng T.

Ahh... I see. I thought it was from Romanization.

Anonymous

It means literally "Rome character[s]"

Anonymous

It is not from English.

Anonymous

But English speakers often think so and beginners sometimes type "Romanji"

Fantasier

Huh?

I thought it was Romanji all along!

Anonymous

16:40

Nope.

Anonymous

ローマ字

Fantasier

T_T

Anonymous

It's an understandable mistake because other people make the same mistake, and so it gets transmitted from person to person

Damkerng T.

Poor Fantasier. :P

I think I usually switched between the two.

Now I know which one is correct. Yay!

Anonymous

Variously written with or without a macron (or circumflex); it's regularized in English spelling without either as romaji. Also written rōmazi, reflecting a phonemic romanization.

Santi Santichaivekin

16:44

Hello guys ^ ^

Damkerng T.

Hello!

Fantasier

Hello!

Damkerng T.

So, you are a Thai too?

Fantasier

Hehe. I succeeded in persuading him to join the chat :P

Santi Santichaivekin

Yep

Damkerng T.

16:45

Nice! :D

Anonymous

Hello! Welcome to ELL chat!

Damkerng T.

We discussed your question a little earlier. You can scroll up to read it.

Santi Santichaivekin

Nice to meet you (' ' )/ /

Damkerng T.

Nice to meet you, too!

Santi Santichaivekin

So.. It's a kind of a.... noun phrase or something?

Damkerng T.

16:46

Now, we have three Thais here already. We are taking over the room. Mwahahaha...

@SantiSantichaivekin I think it's a noun phrase.

Fantasier

So do I

Damkerng T.

But explaining relative clauses is not my specialty.

(I'm trying to answer another question: "Nothing could be less like A than B." I don't know if it will work, but I'm gonna try anyway. :-)

Santi Santichaivekin

Noun phrase

A noun phrase or nominal phrase (abbreviated NP) is a phrase which has a noun (or indefinite pronoun) as its head word, or which performs the same grammatical function as such a phrase. Noun phrases are very common cross-linguistically, and they may be the most frequently occurring phrase type. Noun phrases often function as verb subjects and objects, as predicative expressions, and as the complements of prepositions. Noun phrases can be embedded inside each other; for instance, the noun phrase some of his constituents contains the shorter noun phrase his constituents. In some modern the...

Anonymous

It's a free relative.

Santi Santichaivekin

Kinda confusing..

Fantasier

16:49

I don't think he's familiar with the terminology :O

@snailboat Huh? Is it? I think the which is quite different from the which in I don't know which is the right one

Anonymous

Consider it a noun phrase which happens to look like a relative clause.

Anonymous

@Fantasier Is it? Let me read it again.

Damkerng T.

39 mins ago, by Damkerng T.

> ... because If it is not stated, no one will understand which kind of products I'm talking about.

Santi Santichaivekin

Oh..

edited.

Damkerng T.

So I think I understand it like this:

> No one will understand X.

> I'm talking about [ which kind of products ].

X = [ which kind of products ].

Nico

16:54

How can I insert a zero-length space?

Damkerng T.

So we get the sentence:

Santi Santichaivekin

I see

Damkerng T.

> No one will understand which kind of products I'm talking about.

@Nico I copied it into my clipboard once.

Fantasier

@DamkerngT. How did you even copy it :O

Damkerng T.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 ← a mysterious block

That's how. :D

Anonymous

16:56

@Fantasier Oh, you're right.

Fantasier

@snailboat Yay. I can't figure out what it's called though.

Anonymous

@Fantasier Open interrogative clausal complement

Nico

it doesn't work

Anonymous

There's syntactic overlap between those and free relatives . . .

Nico

I want to type:

"could you help ?"

without the separation between help and ?

Fantasier

16:57

That's a long technical phrase @_@

Anonymous

I can't explain the criteria to distinguish the two off the top of my head.

Damkerng T.

@Nico Ah, I see. I'm afraid I don't know that trick. :(

Anonymous

@Nico Zero-width spaces don't act like spaces on Stack Exchange.

Anonymous

Unfortunately, Markdown is broken in that regard.

Anonymous

On the site itself, you can use <strong></strong> to do it.

Anonymous

16:59

I'm not aware of a workaround in chat.

Transcript for