English Language Learners

Awal Garg

06:00

wait, it link me to the transcript... I wil try to see it in room

Anonymous

Awal Garg

@snailboat why don't you try it here? I am certain (a lil less than certain) I can see it, cus I have done it in other rooms

Anonymous

Because if I type something new here, you'll see it before I delete it.

Awal Garg

@snailboat Type something really really long in a notepad, copy it, paste it here, quickly delete it, and then I will see it :)

Anonymous

Japanese Language

General discussion for japanese.stackexchange.com

Anonymous

06:05

I typed a new message in there.

Awal Garg

^gedit if you are using ubuntu

Anonymous

Thanks, unfortunately I am using Ubuntu, but I haven't stooped so low as to use gedit

Awal Garg

@snailboat ok, I can't see, please will you do it here and reference it to me?

I assure, I'll close my eyes

Anonymous

I'll type a message here and delete it for you.

Awal Garg

@snailboat umm I am waiting

Anonymous

06:07

There you go. Did you get a chance to see it?

Awal Garg

@snailboat no, it plainly says (removed)

ok, so I can't see it...

history is not working for me. It redirects me to a not found damn page :(

Anonymous

That's what happens when you try to access the history of a message you don't have access to.

Awal Garg

did you reference it me? I didn't got pinged :)

Anonymous

No, it didn't ping you. I'll try one that pings you

Awal Garg

@snailboat yup, Its plainly my name with an @, isn't it?

or did you type something else it forbids me from seeing?

Anonymous

06:11

I don't know, what happens when you look at the history and highlight the spaces after the message?

Awal Garg

@snailboat no, there is only one space

wait, I'll post a screencapture

Anonymous

So you can see messages that you posted or messages that ping you, is what you're telling me?

Awal Garg

@snailboat Is what I am interpreting...

Anonymous

No, there's no observable difference to me, because I can see the history of any message regardless

Awal Garg

^this is what I see

Anonymous

06:17

Nice! You pinged yourself.

Awal Garg

@snailboat thats weird, its not showing your username... but the message id is yours

Anonymous

@AwalGarg Haha, I see that!

Anonymous

I went to the URL and it says snailboat

Awal Garg

I think I will earn free meta rep if I report this

Anonymous

God, the chat code is weird.

Anonymous

06:19

Want a screen shot of mine to compare with?

Awal Garg

@snailboat I refresh the page, its still same

@snailboat yeah, sure

Anonymous

Awal Garg

@snailboat even more weird, the time is different. mine shows 06:13

Anonymous

Mine still says 06:09 when I reload it

Anonymous

But your later deleted message says 06:13

Anonymous

06:21

chat.stackexchange.com/messages/15727508/history

Anonymous

That gives me an idea.

Anonymous

Load your "see?" message, then load this one: chat.stackexchange.com/messages/15705603/history

Awal Garg

@snailboat yes, before I deleted that message, I can't see see yours....

it seems se chat system has some loopholes

Anonymous

Can you see this last one I just linked to?

Awal Garg

@snailboat both seems very similar to me, only the text is different

@snailboat no, I can't. page no found

Anonymous

06:25

Very strange.

Anonymous

How about that message I just deleted? No, right?

Awal Garg

> Page not found
We couldn't find the page you requested. We did, however, find some guys with an even more serious problem.

Try searching for a particular message
Browse the available rooms
Occasionally, messages or rooms may be removed for reasons of moderation: spam, off topic, abuse, etcetera.

If you feel something is missing that should be here, contact us.

@snailboat no, I have to type a message, delete it so see it.

^this one is sameway visible like the earlier one

and same time - 06:13

Anonymous

It says 6:26 for me . . .

Awal Garg

I quit, I am bored enough....

33 mins ago, by Awal Garg

> It seems obvious that heavier things shall fall faster towards Earth, but as clever Newton proved, they don't!

33 mins ago, by snailboat

@AwalGarg But seems fine there, too.

30 mins ago, by Awal Garg

@snailboat ok, so?

^tell continue now back

Anonymous

@AwalGarg So what? But seems fine.

Anonymous

06:31

What more do you want me to say about it?

Awal Garg

@snailboat suggest me a word - xyz, so that my sentence becomes:

> It is xyz that heavier things fall faster towards Earth.

Anonymous

Um, are you trying to come up with another word that means obvious?

Awal Garg

@snailboat no, something that every one jumps to, but the conclusion they jump to is wrong...

Anonymous

Obvious seemed appropriate in the original sentence.

Anonymous

I would have personally said should instead of shall, though

Awal Garg

06:36

@snailboat brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke129796.html

@snailboat ^ here, replace the three king words with a simple word

simple = single

Anonymous

Um, why would I do that? :-)

Awal Garg

@snailboat no, I am asking that if I wanna use a single word for them, what would it be?

Anonymous

I have no idea.

Awal Garg

@snailboat why don't you fiddle with NOAD and try to come up with one? You are a mod, its your duty to look into matters I present...

Anonymous

@AwalGarg Whuh?

Awal Garg

06:40

^please

@snailboat please :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :-) :D :P :p

Anonymous

I'm sorry, I can't suddenly make an appropriate word appear by sheer dint of effort

Anonymous

Ask a single word request on ELU or something. They like those over there.

Anonymous

Especially Cerberus, an ELU regular.

Awal Garg

@snailboat you don't need to be sorry, Its not your duty, I was kidding :) ...

@Cerberus chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/15727665#15727665

@snailboat why not "specially" in this one?

Anonymous

@AwalGarg Especially means something like "particularly"

Awal Garg

06:44

@snailboat You iz wrong first time

Special is a common adjective. Specially is its adverb form. Special means "particular, distinguished in a distinct way, or designed for a particular purpose." Specially means "particularly, in a disintguishing manner, or for a particular purpose."

englishplus.com/grammar/00000287.htm

I deserve a badge to prove you wrong, considering I am a non-native, 16yr kid...

Anonymous

Um, what did I say that was wrong?

Awal Garg

1 min ago, by snailboat

@AwalGarg Especially means something like "particularly"

Anonymous

But especially does mean something like "particularly".

Awal Garg

> Especial is an uncommon adjective.

Anonymous

Yes, especial is very odd.

Anonymous

06:46

Especially is common, though.

Awal Garg

so, did I get excited too early?

Anonymous

I've only seen native speakers use especial a few times. It's very rare. I've seen non-native speakers use especial more

Anonymous

Although interestingly, I can't recall seeing anyone on ELL say especial!

Awal Garg

It seems to me like e-special, like e-book

^so, yes, in your context it seems right, cos this is an e-chat.

@snailboat so, it is e-speciality

duh! I had almost believed I pointed out a mistake of a brilliant English expert.

Anonymous

@AwalGarg Well, I don't think what I said was wrong, but what I said wasn't a complete description of the difference between specially and especially, either

Anonymous

06:54

Keep in mind that I only know so much stuff, and that I'm wrong sometimes--I'm not really trying to compete with you

Anonymous

But I do enjoy talking about English

Anonymous

I'm a native speaker and I've studied a little bit of linguistics, but I'm not an expert

Awal Garg

@snailboat uh oh, umm, still you are greatly ahead in terms of linguistics, I think :)

bye!

Anonymous

@AwalGarg Fare well!

Awal Garg

09:49

@DamkerngT. u there?

@DamkerngT. need a word. no joke. need a word. not an english word. a word.

^^ I see you might be busy now. please ping me whenever you are free... cu soon!

Damkerng T.

12:19

@AwalGarg I'm here.

Wow, a lot of things happened!

(In this chat room, I mean.)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Hello!

Anonymous

Welcome back to ELL chat!

Anonymous

I like typing "Welcome to ELL chat!"

Anonymous

It's become a habit :-)

Anonymous

I got really frustrated earlier when my computer became unresponsive.

Damkerng T.

12:25

I just started skimming through the ellipsis discussion a little.

Very interesting!

(Also, I already forgot what I said. But I think I agree with what I said. :-)

Anonymous

Sounds like a plan! Agreeing with yourself, that is. I don't do that often enough.

Anonymous

I just revised an answer from about a year ago. Oh, how much wincing I did!

Damkerng T.

:)

I also upvoted Cerberus's answer.

Anonymous

Hooray!

Damkerng T.

Yay!

Anonymous

12:30

@Cerberus: Yes, it may suggest a historical process to some people. Grammatical terminology, I've found, can suggest just about anything to some people. Which is no reason no to use it, of course, if it's clear enough to others. I don't feel responsible for what other people have or have not learned; only for what I might teach them. — John Lawler Oct 26 '13 at 17:28

Damkerng T.

That sounds like him. :-)

Anonymous

John Lawler very often sounds like John Lawler.

Damkerng T.

9 hours ago, by snailboat

I value synchronic analyses

The term is interesting. (It's new to me.)

Anonymous

There is a distinction between synchronic and diachronic.

Anonymous

I think that traditionally, linguistics (or grammar and language study in general) has been oriented more toward diachronic analysis

Anonymous

12:34

But then with the structuralist movement

Anonymous

Structural linguistics

Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics originating from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and is part of the overall approach of structuralism. De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, published posthumously in 1916, stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as a father of modern linguistics for bringing about the shift from diachronic (historical) to synchronic (non-historical) analysis, as well as for introducing several basic dimensions of semiotic analysis that are still important today, such as syntagmatic...

Anonymous

People started trying to analyze the language more the way it is than the way it was or has become

Damkerng T.

Ahh

I think both views are useful.

Anonymous

Diachronic and synchronic analyses are both interesting and helpful.

jimsug

Yup. Different solutions to different problems.

Damkerng T.

12:36

Ah, hello @jimsug!

Anonymous

There can be a bit of a gradient between the two.

Anonymous

A synchronic analysis might be informed by diachronic analysis

jimsug

Certainly, they have overlaps :)

Anonymous

(as an example)

jimsug

@DamkerngT. And hello to you too! :)

@snailboat Agreed.

Anonymous

12:37

A lot of linguists aren't so beholden to theory, and will take whatever analysis they can get that's interesting or seems to work ;-)

jimsug

@snailboat I have no idea what you're talking about >.>

Slightly random aside: is what's the meaning of “end on a note of” in this context? almost off-topic?

Anonymous

@jimsug Hah.

jimsug

Like, very nearly a dictionary lookup?

Anonymous

But a lot of other linguists are really caught up in one theory or another. And some theories are, well, pretty far from simple attempts to explain the evidence we find

Damkerng T.

To be fair for the OP, I couldn't find it in my favorite dictionary. (I just searched for it.)

Anonymous

12:39

(I wish Chomskyite grammar were a smaller player in Japanese linguistics)

jimsug

@snailboat Yeah, I find Chomskyian grammar to be, at best, circular

@DamkerngT. Yeah. Edge case, I suppose. I didn't VtC, because I felt that "end on a (X) note" was idiomatic enough.

@DamkerngT. Although I can imagine similar idioms in other languages.

Anonymous

I'm most interested in descriptive linguistics, which can be more or less theoretical, depending on how it's organized

Damkerng T.

Somehow I think Chomsky's grammar isn't closely related to natural languages.

@jimsug Agreed.

Anonymous

Of the grammars I have, Martin and Quirk et al. both fit into the messy category, trying to describe the data without worrying too much about the theory that goes into it, embracing multiple analyses whenever it seems reasonable

Anonymous

Whereas CGEL is more explicitly theoretial

Anonymous

12:42

And on the other side of that, McCawley is theory-steeped

jimsug

@DamkerngT. Unfortunately, the idea of an innate, universal grammar isn't one that I can abide by - at least, not with the evidence that we have at the moment.

@snailboat Martin = SFL?

Damkerng T.

@jimsug A-ha! That's what I think too.

Anonymous

@jimsug Samuel Elmo Martin, A Reference Grammar of Japanese (1975)

Damkerng T.

I mean, just having legs doesn't ensure that we can walk.

jimsug

@snailboat Hah. That's what I get for assuming :P I wonder whether anyone's taken an SFL approach to Japanese grammar though, now that I think of it?

Awal Garg

12:44

Ahh, many great people here :)

Anonymous

Martin was something of a structuralist, one of the students of the founder of the school of structuralist Japanese linguistics, Bernard Bloch, who was one of the first to attempt a purely synchronic analysis of Japanese grammar

Anonymous

But Martin is one of those linguists I mentioned who is not beholden to any theory, and he borrowed liberally from various other schools whenever he thought he could get away with it. You can see a bunch of generative influence in his work even though he, in terms of theory, had no interest in the transformational grammar of that era

Anonymous

(I say "is" in the sense that we use the historical present in describing written works, but Martin passed away in 2009)

Anonymous

@jimsug Yes, but not comprehensively

jimsug

@snailboat Fair enough. English is really the only language that Halliday and his lot have tried to make sense of.

Anonymous

13:14

Oh, no! I only have 4 vote left today.

Anonymous

3!

Awal Garg

@snailboat you can take mine. full 40 left :)

Anonymous

Do you use ELL?

Anonymous

As a native English speaker person I find it hilarious that this was migrated here. — Preet Sangha 3 hours ago

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Yay!

Anonymous

13:18

Well, this is embarrassing. Reading various posts of theirs, I don't really get the feeling that they're a native speaker. But eh. Sometimes I read my own messages and think, "No! What's that a doing there!? And now it's too late to edit...!"

Anonymous

I suppose slips happen to everyone. Maybe to me more than others. :-)

Anonymous

Stick:

Anonymous

-1 because those sound extremely unidiomatic to me. An English speaker would be much more likely to use the adjective perceptive than percipient. — Matt ♦ 1 hour ago

Anonymous

Carrot:

Anonymous

@LucianSava But if you changed your answer to say perceptive, I could upvote it :-) — snailplane 18 secs ago

Anonymous

13:20

Mmm, carrot.

Anonymous

Ta-da! 41 votes today.

Anonymous

I am the votingest.

Anonymous

But soon, @DamkerngT., you will usurp my throne. :-(

Anonymous

You have almost as many votes as me, but I've been using the site a whole year longer than you!

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I'm a big spender (of my votes)!

@snailboat How can you do it? 41!

Anonymous

13:29

@DamkerngT. It's a secret.

Anonymous

Can you figure it out?

Damkerng T.

Nope!

Oh, now I can't get that thought out of my head!

> Term for someone who has an eye for detail

Eh? Shouldn't it just be "a detail-oriented person"?

jimsug

@DamkerngT. I assumed they didn't want that. Maybe I assumed wrong? :P

Damkerng T.

Maybe it's too obvious. :D

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Sure. Or "someone who has an eye for detail".

Anonymous

13:37

A lot of these questions seem to answer themselves :-)

Damkerng T.

LOL

@snailboat Ah, I think I can tell why the question was migrated.

> I wanted to send an email to politely remind the recipient (a client) of some work that I'd done which they needed to to review. This was the top email, while the rest of the body of the work was in the attachments/body.

Oh, I thought wrong.

Glancing through it quickly, I thought that "to to" was ungrammatical.

> Just wondering if you've had a chance to review this please?

jimsug

Hmm.

Damkerng T.

Note-to-self: A native speaker wasn't sure why this "please" sounded wrong, either.

jimsug

See, in this case, a fairly convincing case can be made for the written discourse imitating spoken English.

Damkerng T.

I think it's just about cause and consequence.

jimsug

13:42

The please hedging the question, to add politeness, and the question mark denoting a rising pitch movement at the end of the clause.

Hmm.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Erm, you might be able to parse it with to to, but it looks like one of them is unintentional.

Anonymous

And anyway, what verb would you suggest is ellipted after the first to?

Anonymous

The only one I see is do (after earlier done), but that seems to get the wrong meaning

Damkerng T.

On my second reading, I read it as [ that I'd done [ which they needed to ] to review ].

Anonymous

> I wanted to send an email to politely remind the recipient (a client) of some work that I'd done which they needed to do [(in order) to review].

Anonymous

13:45

So I think they just typed an extra to. Happens to everyone :-)

Damkerng T.

Ahh... my first reading was safe. Yay!

(My FF crashed again. :-)

jimsug

Anyone know of a good way to link to COCA results? I've never come across anything useful for this.

Damkerng T.

Go looking...

Anonymous

Nope.

Anonymous

Just summarize them. You don't link directly to COCA results.

Damkerng T.

13:49

corpus.byu.edu/coca/?c=coca&q=30977202

jimsug

@snailboat Yeah, I suppose it would be too taxing for them.

Damkerng T.

What would you see if you clicked on my link?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Huh. Have I been wrong all this time?

jimsug

A search for [need] to to

Damkerng T.

Yay!

jimsug

13:50

@snailboat It's certainly new to me.

@DamkerngT. How'd you do that?

Damkerng T.

I registered with the site, so I have my "history".

Going to my "history" page, I can find links for sharing.

Anonymous

Oh, you can?

Damkerng T.

I think we all can. :D

Anonymous

Yippee!!

Anonymous

I have 1346 queries to share.

Damkerng T.

13:51

Oh, that's a lot!

Anonymous

corpus2.byu.edu/coca/links_e.asp

Anonymous

> You can create links to queries that you have done, which allows other users to just click on a link to re-do your query and see the same results. This may be useful when you want to create a web page for students to work through queries, or when you want to share your research and results with other researchers.

Anonymous

> To create a link to one of your queries, do the following:
> 1. Click on "history" below your username (above right).
> 2. Right click on the link in the [Share Link] column of the query that you want to link to, and select "Copy Shortcut" (in Internet Explorer; similar options in other browsers).
> 3. Paste the link into an email or web page. The link should look something like: http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/?c=coha&q=6306814
> Make sure that there is no "x1.asp" in the link (in other words, don't use the link from the "re-run query" column)

Anonymous

Sheesh. What else don't I know about the BYU corpora?

Anonymous

One of my first queries was break an onion.

Damkerng T.

13:53

I found it accidentally, a few days ago.

Oh, that sounds nice!

jimsug

@snailboat Hmm... let me see mine

Anonymous

Somehow, I feel like I've used COCA more than I actually have.

jimsug

> [nn*] slash [nn*]

Anonymous

Slash is a great coordinator.

Damkerng T.

nods

Strange that they really write "slash" instead of "/".

Anonymous

13:56

@DamkerngT. Well, people started reading stuff like "A/B" out loud as "A slash B", and people started thinking of it as an actual coordinator, a word!

Anonymous

Coordinators are a closed class, so new ones don't pop up too often.

Anonymous

So it's exciting when a new one is born!

Anonymous

Once upon a time, I would have told you that "A/B" should be pronounced like it's "A or B". Shows how much I know!

Damkerng T.

Oh, really? (I thought we always read it as "A slash B" all along.)

Thanks for the tip!

jimsug

@DamkerngT. Yep, this was going to be my Honours thesis topic. It's that new.

(Or at least, I thought it was ;P)

Anonymous

13:59

Pullum wrote about it last year on Lingua Franca: chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/04/30/being-a-coordinator

Damkerng T.

@jimsug Ah, that sounds interesting!

Anonymous

Ah, in response to another article, which I'd forgotten!

Japanese Language

Transcript for