English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

00:04

It's all right, I think. I didn't mean it as a serious question anyway. Just some thought provoking stuff.

A real puzzle that I still can't solve it myself is this question:

2

Q: Meaning of "Had" in - Now he wished he could have had longer alone with Katerina

I got this sentence - Now he wished he could have had longer alone with Katerina. Context - He was talking with Katrina, after some time his brother came. And he wished this (the quoted sentence). I understand the meaning of this sentence, and the structure is also not new to me. It's fami...

meaning

> Now he wished he could have had longer alone with Katerina.

The best I can do to mend it in order to make it look a bit more familiar is to insert "for time" before "he could".

> Now he wished (for time) he could have had longer alone with Katerina.

Which is perhaps Unenglish. :D

StoneyB

"HAVE longer" is a colloquial abbreviation of "HAVE a longer time" -- I wish I'd had longer in Venice, but I had to be in Munich by the 16th.

2

Damkerng T.

Ahh

That makes perfect sense! Thank you very much!

StoneyB

It's only used in the comparative and only with long -- you can't say "I had ∗long with Katerina" or "I had {∗short/∗shorter} with Katerina."

Damkerng T.

I suspected that it would be a fixed expression, but I couldn't find it in online dictionaries I tried. (I haven't look it up in OED1 yet.)

I believe that the OP could use your answer. :-)

StoneyB

I imagine it comes about by analogy, because other quantifiers can serve as 'pronouns' for the nominals they are inferred to modify: "I want more!"

(sigh) Once upon a time I saw all the questions on ELU, but now I only catch about half of them. Progress.

Damkerng T.

00:15

Interesting! I haven't thought of "I want more" this way before!

StoneyB

I was reading about that in CGEL a couple nights ago ...

Damkerng T.

I was able to read all new ELL questions every day. I can only browse through 6-10 questions each day now. (It's a bit sad for me, but 6-10 is better than nothing.)

StoneyB

Of course it's made a little better by the fact that there are now some questioners I don't bother with ... ;}

Damkerng T.

Ahh

StoneyB

... fused-head determiners is what CGEL calls this: "Fused-head NPs are those where the head is combined with a dependent function that in ordinary NPs is adjacent to the head, usually determiner or internal modifier."

In my day we called them 'pronouns', which was a lot shorter to type!

Damkerng T.

00:29

Hmm... I think I can't grasp it really well.

Ahh... I think I understand it a little better now.

> I need some more paper. Have you got any?

any = any paper

In I want more, the word more is a fused-head determiner, meaning "more whatever".

So, probably...

StoneyB

Exactly! In those the 'head' of the NP is 'fused' into the determiner. A head can also be fused into a modifier: "I had two pencils, but I lost the first."

Damkerng T.

In Now he wished he could have had longer alone with Katerina, the word longer means a longer time.

StoneyB

Yah ... because a longer time is in some contexts idiomatically expressed as more time.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure if longer is a determiner, but it looks like it's a fused-head of some kind.

StoneyB

Occasionally we can use ordinary adjectives this way, but they take a determiner: The rich rob the poor. That's much commoner in inflected European languages (which is why the Romans put nouns and adjectives in the same word-class). But those languages generally treat such uses as nouns.

In German in fact, where they capitalize all nouns, you would write Die Reichen berauben die Armen.

Damkerng T.

00:45

Ah, Macmillan has an entry for long (n.), too!

long (n.) a long period of time

I can't find an entry for longer (n.), though.

StoneyB

00:57

That's because it isn't a noun - it's the adjective employed as a nominal: a fused-head modifier!

(But I'd be happier calling it a head-fused modifier.)

Damkerng T.

nods

StoneyB

I'm getting peckish now (writers get to eat sometimes, too) - catchya later!

Damkerng T.

I wish I could stay longer, but I have to leave, too. It's been a real pleasure. Later!

user116848

10:32

@DamkerngT. Hi! I think I will call you DT too. It sounds nice.

Damkerng T.

Umm... Okay!

user116848

Or do you like Damk?

user116848

Yep, both are good.

Damkerng T.

Compared to Damk, I think I like DT better.

user116848

@DamkerngT. nods - That's what I thought.

user116848

10:33

DT is the proper short form.

Damkerng T.

DT sounds like a common way to call other's name by their initials.

user116848

True.

CopperKettle

Good afternoon, @DamkerngT.!

Damkerng T.

Good afternoon!

CopperKettle

I'm wondering is it a relative clause in this question

1

Q: Can I say, "with who"?

Can we say, "He is a guide with who we went on a tour of the island"? I was told to write, "He is a guide with whom we went on a tour of the island."

pronouns

Damkerng T.

10:40

I think "with who" sounds odd because who comes after with.

CopperKettle

So Michael Swan seems to have omitted this point, "coming after with".

Thanks!

Damkerng T.

I'm sure there are some good threads on both ELU and ELL about this issue.

CopperKettle

nods

7

Q: "With who" vs. "with whom"

Is this correct? The person with whom I'm doing the project should be here soon. If it is, is with always a dative preposition (like mit in German)?

pronouns case whom

Indeed

I also fantazised a bit in one other question, and am now wondering can we really use "people are living longer" in the scheduled-event sense of "this traing is arriving at 5 p.m.". But so far I got one point. (0:

1

A: How to understand the sentence "people are living longer"?

These days, people are living longer. Here, we want to say that according to statistics, people have been dying at a more advanced age in the recent period compared to a period preceding it. Hence, the people who are alive at the moment have more chances to live a longer life. T...

Damkerng T.

> Here, we want to say that according to statistics, people have been dying at a more advanced age in the recent period compared to a period preceding it. Hence, the people who are alive at the moment have more chances to live a longer life.

That paragraph confuses me a bit.

(Particularly the Hence.)

CopperKettle

Oh, I tried to explain the meaning. Should've wrote a simpler paragraph. It wasn't an intentionally ornate writing. (0:

Damkerng T.

10:49

I suspected as much!

You might want to consider a common phrase such as "shoter life span" or "shorter life expectancy"

CopperKettle

nods

Damkerng T.

> ell.stackexchange.com/a/41235/3281

Turn, Turn, Turn!

I remember I've heard it before, but can't remember which movie. Must be in a movie, I'm rather sure.

CopperKettle

It seems to have been used in "Forrest Gump"

Damkerng T.

A-ha!

That's why it sounds so familiar! Thanks!

CopperKettle

(0:

It's a song used a lot in movies about 1960s in the US, I guess

Damkerng T.

10:56

nods -- This one is hard not to like. :D

CopperKettle

(0:

The music of that period is hard not to like, I'd say (0:

Damkerng T.

Indeed!

CopperKettle

I listen to some while jogging, like Mamas and Papas and Bob Dylan (0:

►

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Hey, that reminds me of Wobbly: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18132241#18132241

CopperKettle

Yep, a Hillbilly style (0:

user116848

11:23

I like this saying:

user116848

> Everything around you that you call life, was made up by people that were no smarter than you

user116848

(Steve Jobs, in 1994)

Damkerng T.

That's quite true, and yet false, and yet true.

user116848

I know we can argue against it. I just like the motivation that it conveys.

Damkerng T.

Audrey Hepburn's version: Nothing is impossible, the word itself says "I'm possible"!

user116848

11:29

Oh, nice!

user116848

I like this article: doctornerdlove.com/2012/07/fear-hold-you-back/all/1

user116848

It is good for my anxiety issues :-)

Damkerng T.

Umm... The xkcd's toon is kinda cute!

user116848

I also feel like sharing this:

user116848

> Fear, kills dreams, fear kills hope, fear, put people in the hospital, fear can age you. Fear ladies and gentleman, can hold you back from doing something that you know within yourself that you are capable of doing. But it will paralyze you, and it’ll seem like you are in a hypnotic spell. And I ask you a question, what is the benefit? What’s the benefit of allowing fear to hold you back? What’s the benefit, of giving up on yourself? Of not stepping out on life, and taking life on. What is the benefit for you? What’s the plus in that? That’s one of the things I had to ask myself. I di…

user116848

11:45

Again good for my anxiety issues :)

Damkerng T.

If it's good for you, then it works.

user116848

It is a good message. A positive one.

Damkerng T.

Whatever works works. That's the thing.

user116848

nods - Better than the negative ones :-)

user116848

That "Fantasy Vs. Reality" cartoon in the link above is h-i-l-ar-i-o-u-s.

user116848

11:50

;-)

user116848

But it can happen.

user116848

Oh, yes. It can. That would be pretty embarrassing.

user116848

Now I am afraid again.

user116848

Good thing I don't have a habit of hitting on any girl. I just don't like the idea I guess.

user116848

I can be friendly. That's all I guess.

Damkerng T.

11:53

If you like the girl, don't hesitate!

user116848

@DamkerngT. I know. But I always get anxious about the uncertainties.

user116848

I have a fear of rejection when it comes to girls.

Damkerng T.

Something like, what if she says no?

user116848

@DamkerngT. Yeah, exactly!

user116848

So, believe it or not I have never dated anyone in my life either.

user116848

11:55

:-)

user116848

I am okay with it :-)

Damkerng T.

That's a little sad.

user116848

So, the girl I used to like was only my studies friend in the college.

user116848

Here we have a culture of arrange marriages. But still many people date.

Damkerng T.

Ahh

user116848

11:57

I am a bit conservative in the sense.

user116848

Yep! I am very conservative when it comes to dating etc. :-)

Damkerng T.

I guess that it's different there.

user116848

Yes, it is. But here it is very common for guys to go out to eat something with a girl.

user116848

Being a guy I have never done that too.

user116848

So, some friends make fun of me in that :-)

user116848

12:01

Yeah, I am a stay at home and work, study kinda person.

Damkerng T.

There is a saying, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

user116848

Haha!

Damkerng T.

To apply it to our case, it might need to be in the reverse, "It is better to be rejected ten times than letting the right one get away." :-)

user116848

But I never sound as desperate as Jasper.

user116848

heh

user116848

12:04

@DamkerngT. That's very true.

Damkerng T.

Going out to grab something to eat. See you later!

user116848

See ya!

user116848

14:24

Oh, wow! I am in the "frequently in room" heading here.

user116848

Yay!

user116848

But I am not there in ELU chat in this heading. I don't know why.

user116848

Although ELU chat, ELL chat and Overlook are in my favorites.

user116848

When I take a break from studies, work etc. I come in these places to relax and chill.

CopperKettle

15:38

I wonder would the sentence "If you were here it would be great" be grammatical.

user116848

@CopperKettle It looks okay. You can also write:

user116848

"It would be great if you were here"

CopperKettle

Then it's a good question that I'm reading, it made me think.. (0:

1

Q: Is it correct to use "be" as an auxiliary verb?

I have read in some documents that they, for example, say: if you be here, it would be great I touch the meaning, well; but I would like to become sure if these two sentences have two different meanings: if you be here, it would be great if you are here, it would be great I suppose that in ...

verb conditional-constructions auxiliary-verbs

user116848

"if you be here" seems odd. I don't know if it is common enough.

CopperKettle

It seemed odd to me too!

user116848

15:42

Old English perhaps? I don't know.

user116848

I commented there but I didn't feel like answering.

user116848

"be", "was", "been" are all related though.

CopperKettle

Yes, to be is the basic form, are coordinates with the pronoun you

So, we transmogrify are into were to make the whole shebang a Type 2 Conditional, IMHO

user116848

It looks like it. Yes.

CopperKettle

16:02

A nice contraption:
http://www.e1.ru/talk/forum/go_to_message.php?f=67&t=14721381&i=14723688

Damkerng T.

Observation of the day: learners usually assume that there is only one way to say some thing.

user116848

17:09

I put my age in my profile.

user116848

I didn't know we had to write the whole year/month/day

user116848

19:30

Oh man. Jasper made me sent him an email.

user116848

in The Overlook Hotel, 2 hours ago, by Will Hunting

@Farooq Will you tell me your first name and last name in email? You can email me at jasperloy at outlook dot com, then I will have your email too.

user116848

I did.

user116848

But what's the use anyways. We are all in chat all the time.

user116848

I broke my code of "no emails" I guess :)

user116848

I hear many people use burner emails these days.

user116848

19:40

Is it like a not so important email address?

user116848

Yep. I guess so.

Damkerng T.

He might want to discuss some private matters with you; maybe it's only just in case.

One problem I found myself is that I sometimes really forget my passwords.

user116848

It happens to me too.

user116848

Passwords are difficult to remember sometimes.

user116848

Also it is not safe to write them somewhere.

user116848

19:45

@DamkerngT. Yeah, that's what I am afraid of :-)

Damkerng T.

I think "anyways" is going to be your signature.

user116848

@DamkerngT. Mine? It looks good.

Damkerng T.

I guess you might have picked it up from ELU, but I can't figure out people you constantly use anyways instead of anyway; maybe it's only you.

user116848

@DamkerngT. But I don't use it often, do I?

Damkerng T.

I really dunno; I believe it's still nonstandard, but it's common enough in some dialects.

user116848

19:52

I use "but" a lot.

Damkerng T.

@Farooq Try searching for "anyways" said by someone, and then searching for "anyway" said by that same someone, and you might be able to observe some patterns.

Your anyway:anyways ratio on ELU is 1:5, and it's 4:20 here.

user116848

@DamkerngT. :-)

Damkerng T.

:D

Will Hunting's on ELU is 63:0. Mine in this chat room is 277:2.

Robusto's in ELU's chat room is 671:10.

Matt's is 280:0.

I guess it's fair to say that it's your signature. :D

I think though is my signature. I said it over a thousand times here.

user116848

Oh :-)

Damkerng T.

Hey, but snailboat said though more times than me!

user116848

20:01

@DamkerngT. But Robusto and other guys have too many "anyway". So why my signature?

user116848

I like it though. My signature :-)

Damkerng T.

I mean Anyways.

user116848

I see :-)

user116848

Where is snail? @DamkerngT.

user116848

I know a silly question.

Damkerng T.

20:03

It's only a couple of days to the exam, I think she must be preparing herself.

user116848

I miss @snailboat

Damkerng T.

nods

We all do.

user116848

I don't know if anyone misses me here when I am gone for too long.

user116848

I mean in a 'good company' here in chat sense.

Damkerng T.

I'm sure some of us will. Heck, I guess I will.

user116848

20:08

Yeah, I show up everyday :)

Damkerng T.

9

A: Can I say, "with who"?

You can't say with who, not even casually The word whom is dying out of English, but it's not dead yet. It remains in use in formal speech. In informal speech, people people usually replace it with who except when this sounds especially awkward. Many people aren't sure when to say who and when t...

Oh, this is weird. I was in the middle of reading and the downvote came!

user116848

Good answer.

user116848

It looks very elaborate.

user116848

tchrist's answers are like that.

Damkerng T.

Look like so, but I haven't read it through yet. I don't want to simply pile up on the votes.

user116848

20:12

Yeah, I haven't read it too. Just figured by the votes and its length.

user116848

ELL is generous today. I got 5 votes on my answer today :-)

Damkerng T.

Good for you!

user116848

I know

user116848

It is becoming very rare for me.

user116848

The site is not that busy I guess.

Damkerng T.

20:16

@Farooq either

user116848

@DamkerngT. Thanks!

user116848

You remind me of snailboat.

Damkerng T.

Hehe!

user116848

:-)

Damkerng T.

"The word whom is dying out of English" -- Isn't that a bit sad?!

user116848

20:21

"Who" is getting common I guess.

Damkerng T.

nods -- More and more common.

The other one is were; was seems to be going to take its place.

user116848

"Were" is common for plurals though.

Damkerng T.

Oh, that's true. I meant only the case of remote thinking.

user116848

"If I were" seems more accurate to me. "If I was" sounds informal.

user116848

Still they use it.

Damkerng T.

20:27

nods -- It's safer for non-native speakers to use "If I were".

user116848

Yes, that's what I was taught too.

Anonymous

Word of the day: prosopagnosia

Damkerng T.

Hey, speaking of the snailboat!

user116848

@snailboat Hi!

Damkerng T.

looking it up...

user116848

20:31

Nice word!

Damkerng T.

Ahh... I must've seen it a couple of times, but I couldn't recognize it.

user116848

Difficult word!

Anonymous

@Farooq If I was versus If I were isn't a matter of accuracy. There isn't a strict realis-irrealis contrast between was and were. In fact, was has both functions. But If I were is a collocation and were is significantly more likely here than in some other phrases where was is possible

user116848

I see. Thanks!

Anonymous

So were is good in this phrase in particular

Anonymous

20:33

There are also some phrases where were is strictly required:

Anonymous

Were I to, never *Was I to (which is ungrammatical)

Anonymous

I'm going back to Japanese in a moment so I'm not going to take the time to look it up myself and give you specific guidelines, but you can always check CGEL

Anonymous

The other distinction is formality, though―stick to were in formal or semiformal speech

Anonymous

Irrealis was is informal

Anonymous

And you never have to use irrealis was. So I agree that were is a safe choice

Anonymous

20:35

Some may also take it as a sign that you're more educated, though this isn't strictly true :-) So you may want to use it to give a better impression

Anonymous

Anyway, I'm out for the day―good luck with your studies

user116848

@snailboat Thanks! See you soon. Best of luck to you too!

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Good luck with the exam!

(Just in case you won't come here until after the exam.)

user116848

20:54

I gotta take off too. See you all, guys.

user116848

Good night!

Damkerng T.

Nighty night!

Transcript for

English Language Learners