« first day (507 days earlier)      last day (392 days later) » 

1:00 PM
Are these javaScript codes hosted by Google?
If so, that'll be a problem for me.
Stack Exchange hosts some things on sstatic.net, which is their own domain for static content, and it uses (I think) jQuery hosted on Google's servers
cause it's banned by our gov.
Are you accessing Stack Exchange via HTTP or HTTPS?
twitter, FB, among lots of other sites.
I use Goagent to visit this site.
1:04 PM
Well, I probably can't help based on the information you've provided.
without it I use http
But you could start a meta post.
Hi everyone
Welcome to ELL chat!
1:04 PM
It would be nice if SE failed gracefully without JS.
I know little about js. Perhaps json or what would be nicer?
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way
I read news that intel are going to add new instruction-sets to CPUs for better js performances.
I have a question that I need to discuss that's why not asking on the main site
1:11 PM
@ZhanlongZheng That is also silly.
@Farooq What would you like to ask?
@snailboat Yes in a bit
What is the difference between "I wished I could have been with my family when they arrived" vs "I wished I could be with my family when they arrived" I want to convey that later they went their way 'not before'.
@snailboat better change things entirely, I suppose.
@snailboat You saw my question ?
1:14 PM
@ZhanlongZheng Stack Exchange uses a library written in JS called jQuery. There's lots of copies hosted around the web. It just so happens that Google is hosting a copy, and a lot of people link to that copy. Why? Because it has an expiration date a year in the future, and it's used by so many common sites that most people already have a cached copy on their hard drives, so 99% of the time it can use that hard drive copy instead of actually pulling it from Google.
But it's not actually anything unique to Google.
@Farooq Why can't you ask this on the main site again?
Q: Use of ajax.googleapis.com not China friendly

rhughesI often use Stack Overflow from China, where Google based services are regularly blocked or severely hampered. I have noticed that as of late, I am getting a lot of the following error: Stack Overflow requires external JavaScript from another domain, which is blocked or failed to load. The...

@snailboat I did ask a similar question? SO sometimes the site says it is duplicate. Thats why?
@snailboat I can't ask here if I want?
1:18 PM
You already did :-)
But more people will see your question if you ask on the site itself.
@snailboat I cannot read codes. These questions are full of jargon. I have to tolerate all these warnings.
okay... so if anyone else here saw my query above can they answer it here.
Yes, that's true
@ZhanlongZheng Ideally Stack Exchange would fix the problem by providing a fallback or such. You shouldn't have to do anything technical yourself to fix it
1:21 PM
You could probably come up with a technical workaround in theory
I don't know if anyone else already has.
Talking about it on Meta Stack Exchange could help. (Or not. I have no idea.)
It is unfortunate that you don't have real internet access, though
A proxy can cope with that.
What do yo mean by "real" internet access?
Well, you have to go through a censor.
1:25 PM
It decides which major parts of the internet you don't have access to.
@Farooq Would the arrival be a past event or a upcoming one?
That's why VPN and SSH are so popular in chn.
Yeah, you can work around the problem.
hello @DamkerngT.
But it's still unfortunate.
What is unfortunate
1:27 PM
@ZhanlongZheng upcoming but with respect to past
@hellodear He is probably offline.
@hellodear Hi
Whats upp
I have joined a company
@hellodear You saw my question above? Can you answer it
@Farooq what do u by that? Are you regretting a lost opportunity or expecting an unlikely arrival?
1:30 PM
Here, only 10% people know my regional language
Now, it's good that I have to speak English now
It will improve my coinversation skills as I have to speak English,
@ZhanlongZheng I think I was clear
1:33 PM
@Farooq answer my question directly, plz.
@ZhanlongZheng okay
@ZhanlongZheng I mean to say that "I wished"
@ZhanlongZheng And they unexpectedly left later
@Farooq so you are not making a wish but recalling a past wish, right?
1:37 PM
@ZhanlongZheng No a wish which IS a past event therefore "wished"
@ZhanlongZheng Can you plz also come here. It is quieter there. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15120/…
I suggest you asking it on the site. Be specific about it.
okay I will ask there. Thanks everyone by the way.
I feel hungry now. I'll be back in a minute.
2 hours later…
3:43 PM
A minute seems to be very long in China. :P
2 hours later…
6:09 PM
Yawn . . . snort . . .
Oh, speaking about an old topic :) . . . lookee here, on a grammar site is this: Adverbs can't modify nouns, as you can see from the following incorrect sentences. -- And here's the link: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/537/02
I do so like beating on a dead horse. And they can be so tasty too. chomp, chew, chomp
6:27 PM
@hellodear Congratulations!
@hellodear It definitely will.
@F.E. Yummy!
@DamkerngT. Shouldn't you be sleeping or something?
@F.E. I'm an owl. :D
An owl can fit in a space suit? Does the space suit have wings?
You know, if there is anyone who can compete with the Batman equally, it must be the Owlman. :)
Tiger's tail doesn't fit in a space suit. And my canines are too large to fit, too.
6:42 PM
I think we could design a special space suit for tigers, suppose there is one willing to wear the suit. :)
> "But because we are a support organisation, they don't tend to approach us. Most of our parents are quite the opposite - embarrassed to be calling us at all."
Why use the progressive to "call"?
From: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/26403/confusing-logical-connection
It's interesting because I think it's fine, but I couldn't explain why Jo Counsell used "to be calling us" instead of "to call us". Perhaps it goes better with "are embarrassed".
(My natural choice would be "to call us", but probably it would be phrased as "They would be embarrassed to call us, if [they called us] at all.")
Hmm... Probably to be calling us is a better phrase even in my alternative.
> They would be embarrassed to call us, if [they called us] at all.
They would be embarrassed to be calling us, if [they called us] at all.
They would be embarrassed calling us, if [they called us] at all.
@DamkerngT. "Most of our parents are quite the opposite - embarrassed to be calling us at all." -- the progressive is sometimes used to emphasize the feeling of embarrassment during the call. Compare that against "they are embarrassed to call us", which has weaker implication that they were embarrassed during that call--but they were definitely embarrassed that they had to call.
nods -- I suspect that myself too. -- Perhaps it goes better with "are embarrassed".
When the speaker wants to emphasize the internal state of that action, he'll sometimes stick in a progressive looking verb.
Compare: "Yes, officer, I saw him biting the dog" vs "Yes, officer, I saw him bite the dog".
6:58 PM
Both sentences gave me a strange scene!
But yes, I get what you tried to say.
The "biting" emphasizes that I most likely saw that biting action as it progressed. The "bite" version might only entail that I deduced that he had bit the dog, because I heard the commotion, and when I went to investigate, I saw that the man had chunks of dog flesh in his teeth.
This comes down to the progressive aspect, I think.
Officer: "Did you see what had happened?" "Yes, officer, I saw the man bite the dog." Officer: "Really? You actually saw that? You know for a fact that actually happened?" "Yes, officer, I saw the man biting the dog."
I'm still curious how you, Damkerng, manage to get enough sleep a day... I mean, I sleep really late, but still earlier than you, and I wake up really late, and that's later than you...
7:05 PM
As I said, my sleep cycle is rather erratic. :)
I also usually work better at night.
I think the opposite here is not the opposite of not approaching us, but that of approaching us. It contrasts with tend to approach us, not the whole don't tend to approach us. The opposite here makes the statement stronger, not contradicting it. — Fantasier 6 mins ago
I think it's more like it's the opposite to "highly ambitious parents".
I mean, these are "highly shy parents".
I thought it was referring to the previous paragraph too, but then I realised the speakers were not the same person.
I noticed that too. I guessed that they were all in the same interview.
(I could be wrong. I didn't read the whole article. Bad me. :)
Hi everyone.
Hi @Farooq!
Hi F.E. Damkerng and Fantasier
7:12 PM
I saw in the chat log that you still had a problem with wished. :)
I think I've encountered something like He is not a bad singer. Actually, it's quite the opposite, he is really good at singing and has won three singing competitions. a lot. So that's what was in my mind :)
@DamkerngT. Yes:) lol but I figured it out somehow
@Fantasier Ahh... That's possible too! After all, we're all human!
@Farooq Yay!
@F.E. Hey F.E. you not saying much
7:16 PM
I dunno. BobRodes has answered and his answer is totally different from ours :P
@F.E. In the above sentence (Officer: "Did you see what had happened?") can we say it like “Did you see what has happened?" to convey the same meaning.
I think BobRodes' answer is based on BR's own personal experience rather than the interview.
@Farooq No.
@DamkerngT. Why? we use structures like these. Don't we
That is similar to saying, "He has gone to school yesterday."
7:19 PM
Ha Ha I get it
No problem. :)
And here "I told them who you are/were" (To convey the present meaning)
We can use both?
I mean how come here?
7:21 PM
This one is possible, at least to me.
Yes, if the person is still who they were.
With both are/were?
Yes. But you need to be careful with the time frame.
"if the person is still who they were" part is very important.
Yeah I get that
I think StoneyB has a very good answer on this particular topic. looking...
A: Tense matching problems, e.g.: “I found out Pat is/was male”

StoneyBEither may be correct, in different circumstances. In speaking of facts about a past event or a dead person, use the past tense: there is strong semantic dissonance in saying ∗ I found out that Shakespeare is a male. ∗ She said that the Battle of Borodino is fought on September 7. But w...

7:25 PM
Thanks v much. How can I copy paste like this too? I don't get it here in chat
Saw this over on ELU: "Global warming is a great threat to us people." -- thread is: english.stackexchange.com/questions/177979/…
How would you all evaluate that example?
@Fantasier How can I copy paste like this too? I don't get it here in chat
@Farooq You can paste a link here. Just make sure that the whole line contains nothing but the link you pasted.
You copy that URL, and then paste it here with no additional text.
@F.E. My brain won't accept #2.
7:27 PM
@DamkerngT. But what about #1, the one with "us"?
@F.E. I don't like Example 2 either.
I'm do a quick look-see in CGEL for the "us" usage . . .
@F.E. #1 is passable to me. Though I might say something else instead, like, us all or all of us.
The first one seems weird with 'people', although I don't think it's ungrammatical.
7:29 PM
@Farooq I'm not always here looking at this chat room, even though my picture is there. I do visit other screens and stuff.
I mean, if you people is fine (grammatically), I think us people should be okay too.
Yeah, grammatically.
Ha! That.
Oh, I think you'd better delete it. It's not kosher here. :)
Whats kosher?
legitimate (or okay, fine, ...)
7:33 PM
So should I delete above link?
@DamkerngT. There's two topics that could be related . . .
Q: “A threat to us people” or “a threat to we people”?

RafatWhich of these is correct: Global warming is a great threat to us people. Global warming is a great threat to we people.

@F.E. That is a new trick! -- RESERVING AN ANSWER POST (in case this thread gets closed)
"Global warming is a great threat to us people."* -- This following is grammatical: "Global warming is a great threat to us all/both."
@DamkerngT. Yeah, that thread already has two close votes. Once it gets closed, then no more answers can be made.
That had happened to me once, me in the middle of writing a long post as an answer, and the thread gets locked underneath me. Boy, was I mad!
7:38 PM
Can you still edit your answer once the question gets closed?
I think so . . . not sure.
I answered too you can check it out
@F.E. Happened to me a few times too!
"Global warming is a great threat to us all/both." -- that is standard English, with universal personal pronouns, e.g. "us all", "us both", "you both", etc.
7:41 PM
@Farooq I hope you won't get some downvotes.
@Farooq I'm looking at it now . . .
@DamkerngT. So is there a chance of me getting down votes for that ans?
I'd say that it stands a good chance to get some. :)
It is okay:P
@DamkerngT. So I should be more elaborate
7:44 PM
It depends. I haven't checked out the mood on ELU at the moment. Sometimes it depends on the mood of the site. :)
When answering that is.
You mean good/bad mood?
I'm patiently waiting for F.E.'s answer... Maybe I'll fall asleep before. It's already almost 3 in the morning.
7:45 PM
As far as I can tell, some days ELU goes easy on about everything; some days ELU is rather moody.
Like a woman? hehe
@Farooq I'm not so sure that the version "we people" in that example would be acceptable for standard English. Probably it is ungrammatical, or at least non-standard.
@F.E. Yeah I thought so too. But still gave it as an opinion
CGEL discusses some of this on pages 427-8.
@Farooq Right, but you probably should try to document your opinion. See if there are any grammar sources that support it (or disagrees with you). :)
"We people" usually appears in SPEECHES
7:48 PM
Yes, it probably does, when it's used as a subject.
@Farooq Like "We the people" . . .
Absolutely :)
But as to "We people disagree with that" . . . ?
I think that is correct too..
@F.E. That is something unfamiliar to me.
7:50 PM
But don't we usually say it like "We all disagree with that"
That's different.
We usually leave out "people" word. Don't we?
I think we don't leave out. We just don't add it :)
haha yes
The two issues that I (or someone) probably need to look into are: universal personal pronouns ("us all"), and quantificational adjuncts ("We all enjoyed it").
7:53 PM
Hmm... Are you saying that one of them is an adjunct, and the other is not?
@DamkerngT. I'm trying to refresh myself on those topics . . .
@Farooq That's fine, for it is using a quantificational adjunct: e.g. "We all/both enjoyed it." page 428, [7.i.a], in CGEL.
So "we people" is okay for their answer too?
A...a...h.... I... can't go on like this. I'll be back in the morning (?) to see the answer!
See you all later.
See you soon! Have a good sleep!
7:58 PM
Sleep tight :p
Hmm... strange. The chat room didn't notify us about new questions on ELL.
@DamkerngT. I checked out Practical English Usage great book :)
You mentioned it yesterday
I'm glad you like it!
I also looked a bit into pronouns, . . . but not finding much, except for pages 427-8 in CGEL. Maybe 1985 Quirk et al. has something on it. Maybe @snailboat will think of something on this topic. :)
Maybe I need to also check on apposition ("us people"). . . .
I've seen questions similar to this before, and have answered them, but my mind tends to forget . . .
@DamkerngT. Compare: "Global warming is a great threat to us people. But as to you robots, you all just need batteries and some oil."
Oh, I should copy that example over to the OP's thread. :)
8:17 PM
having some oil... :)
@DamkerngT. Yeah, I'm going to "get up" now--shower and breakfast, which is long overdue . . . :)
9:10 PM
I'm thinking that the info I'm looking for is apposition using pronouns.

« first day (507 days earlier)      last day (392 days later) »