English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

03:36

It's the same idea, but I suspect that it has more to do with several constant factors being combined into a single constant term. In this case air density, the object's true drag coefficient, and cross-sectional area. Sorry, chemistry and physics teacher... :) — Jason Patterson 12 mins ago

No, "air density" might influence the coefficient, but that's not what "lumped" is about. I'm sure their English is great, but a teacher. Hmm...

@CopperKettle I believe that your previous revision is better. Saying that it's about the "lumped" forces is probably the best.

.(Which I why I retracted my upvote.)

CopperKettle

Good morning, @DamkerngT.! Okay, I see. Three votes are okay with me. (0: Maybe'll revert later. (0: I'm busy writing another answer.

..to another question

Damkerng T.

@CopperKettle No, I retracted because I believe it's now incorrect.

"Lumped" in this case is I believed used in opposed to "consistent".

CopperKettle

I thought that "lumped" meant "let's just get away from the headache of calculating each factor".

Damkerng T.

Exactly.

CopperKettle

"Let's lump the constant factors into one coefficient; after all, the air density won't change very fast"

Damkerng T.

03:46

In Finite Element method, two main approx. methods are using consistent and lumped mass matrices.

CopperKettle

That's Chinese to me (0:

Damkerng T.

And both of them are just about approximation.

CopperKettle

I don't understand what aspects of meaning have vanished in my edited answer.

Damkerng T.

Because you've lumped air density into the lumping.

CopperKettle

Well, as Mr Patterson said, it affects the drag.

I'm concocting an answer to this

3

Q: Why does "will" go before a noun in this sentence?

Why does "will" go before the word "Twitter" while there's no question? Under no circumstances will Twitter be liable in any way for any Content...

Damkerng T.

03:51

Yes, but it's not part of the lumping. It could be a factor that influences all parts that are lumped together.

CopperKettle

I'm not sure..

You could add a comment to J Patterson below my post

Damkerng T.

I don't like to argue with a physics teacher in an English forum.

CopperKettle

okay

Damkerng T.

I would if he posted a comment to my answer, but he didn't.

CopperKettle

Well, if my answer gets downvoted further, I'd just roll back (0:

Damkerng T.

03:55

I think your answer is okay, putting physics aside.

And a little better than mine, when it comes to English. (I didn't mention anything about the -ed form.)

CopperKettle

Yes, in a spherical cow way it's okay. (0:

Damkerng T.

Spherical cow!

CopperKettle

Spherical cow

A spherical cow is a humorous metaphor for highly simplified scientific models of complex real life phenomena. The implication is that theoretical physicists will often reduce a problem to the simplest form they can imagine in order to make calculations more feasible, even though such simplification may hinder the model's application to reality. The concept is well enough known that it is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse without explanation. == Details == The phrase comes from a joke that spoofs the simplifying assumptions that physics students are taught to use as they approach nearly...

Damkerng T.

This one looks cute! (It's a bit bigger that I thought!)

CopperKettle

In Russian, it's "a spherical horse in a vacuum"

@DamkerngT. (0:

"For as whipp'd tops and bandied balls,
The learned hold, are animals;
So horses they affirm to be
Mere engines made by geometry"

Damkerng T.

03:59

Horsepower!

About the will question, I think your answer is good.

(I guess if Twitter were UK or EU-based, that will would probably be shall.)

CopperKettle

You mean my comment?

Damkerng T.

Oh, yes, sorry! Your comment.

CopperKettle

Here's an answer, unproofread yet

0

A: Why does "will" go before a noun in this sentence?

This putting of "will" before "Twitter" is an example of what is called "Subject-Auxiliary Inversion". The word "Twitter" is the subject (the key "actor" in the clause), the word "will" is an auxiliary verb. Let's make a basic positive indicative sentence (that simply indicates something): ...

Damkerng T.

It's strange that that Wikipedia page doesn't include emphasis in inversion cases.

(It does include inversion for conditionals.)

CopperKettle

It has it under "negative inversion"

"At no time will Jessica say that. - Subject-auxiliary inversion with a fronted negative expression."

Damkerng T.

04:06

A-ha! I missed that.

CopperKettle

I think that gives more emphasis

Negative inversion

In linguistics, negative inversion is one of many types of subject-auxiliary inversion in English. A negation (e.g. not, no, never, nothing, etc.) or a word that implies negation (only, hardly, scarcely) or a phrase containing one of these words precedes the finite auxiliary verb necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo inversion. Negative inversion is a phenomenon of English syntax. The V2 word order of the other Germanic languages (other than English) does not allow one to acknowledge negative inversion as a specific phenomenon, since the V2 principle of those languages, which is...

Damkerng T.

nods

Also a bit more complicated than the other page.

CopperKettle

yes

Damkerng T.

I think I have one minor point, but probably not necessary for the OP. I think the basic version (without negative inversion) will need a comma.

> Under no circumstances will Twitter be liable for any content.
Under no circumstances, Twitter will be liable for any content.

CopperKettle

But why?

With the comma, the introductory adverbial reads like non-essential information to me

Damkerng T.

04:13

I don't know why, but I expect a comma there. However, a comma will make it sound wrong in the negative inversion.

I think because it's basically a PP.

> Under no circumstances, Twitter will be liable for any content.
Twitter will be liable for any content under no circumstances.

(Which might sound a bit odd, but still grammatical, I believe.)

> Twitter will not be liable for any content under any circumstances.

This would be something more basic.

(Which you already included in the answer.)

CopperKettle

nods

0

Q: "Under no circumstances, Twitter will be liable for any content." - is comma necessary?

Under no circumstances, Twitter will be liable for any content. Do we need the comma after "circumstances", and why?

commas

Damkerng T.

+1!

CopperKettle

Thanks (0:

Damkerng T.

:-)

CopperKettle

I don't get the meaning of this in Wikipedia: "The V2 word order of the other Germanic languages (other than English) does not allow one to acknowledge negative inversion as a specific phenomenon"

Damkerng T.

04:21

V2 word order

In syntax, verb-second (V2) word order is a specific restriction on the placement of the finite verb in a sentence. The V2 principle requires that the finite verb (the verb that is inflected for person) appears in second position of a declarative main clause, whereby the first position is occupied by a single major constituent that functions as the clause topic. V2 word order is common across the Germanic languages and is also found in Indo-Aryan Kashmiri, Northeast Caucasian Ingush, Uto-Aztecan O'odham and fragmentarily in Rhaeto-Romansh Sursilvan. Among members of the Germanic family, English...

I think what they mean is that even a sentence in negative inversion is still in the V2 word order.

CopperKettle

ah

because the "finite verb" (BE) still goes after the subject ( ... will Twitter be liable..)

Damkerng T.

nods -- I think so.

CopperKettle

"Down came the rain", "Along came a spider"

Damkerng T.

That's different!

(I'm sure they must have a nice name for sentences of this kind.)

CopperKettle

Yes, "subject-verb inversion" (Quirk 18.23)

Damkerng T.

04:29

LOL

CopperKettle

(0:

"In consequence, where information processing makes it desirable to front
the third element concerned, the result would tend to be bathetic or misleading if normal order were preserved with the SV, suggesting that a nuclear focus
be placed, inappropriately. on the verb."

"Bathetic". A new word.

"Especially remarkable her oval face was". (CSV)

"Especially remarkable was her oval face" (CVS)

Damkerng T.

2

Q: How can I write a same meaning sentence without using Perfect Progressive?

For Instance: In: "I learn English.", the action "learn" started 10 years ago, and I still learn English now.

tense

Hmm... How can we say present perfect progressive without present perfect progressive? -- This is tough!

CopperKettle

I don't understand the question..

Damkerng T.

I think the natural wording would be "I have been learning English for 10 years."

CopperKettle

"I have a 10-year experience of learning English"

Damkerng T.

04:36

The OP seems to want to say exactly the same thing, but without present perfect progressive.

CopperKettle

Voila!

"I am an English learner with 10 years of experience right behind my back"

Damkerng T.

Ah, but that doesn't suggest the same time frame!

Ah, this one sounds good!

CopperKettle

(0:

CopperKettle

04:49

"Behind my belt" is probably idiomatic also

Damkerng T.

Oh, I've never heard of that one.

CopperKettle

or "under my belt"?

Damkerng T.

Ah, under one's belt sounds more like it.

CopperKettle

under one's belt

Adjective: under one's belt

(idiomatic) Already done; within one's experience; practiced.

Damkerng T.

I think voting is still one of our ELL problems.

CopperKettle

04:54

In what way?

Damkerng T.

I think users do not vote as often as one would expect.

I remember that compared to other language stacks, we were really behind almost all of them.

CopperKettle

Not a problem with me. (0:

Damkerng T.

Oh, not with me either.

But the whole site operates on votes. I'm not sure if the site will stay healthy for long like this. (Actually, I think it's a little worse than the last time I've checked the stats with snailboat.)

I could get a better picture if I knew how to use SE data mining skillfully.

CopperKettle

nods

Damkerng T.

In a perfect world, ELL would be able to run just fine without any point system at all.

CopperKettle

05:01

nods

Damkerng T.

Maybe it will get better (hopefully!) after the first few weeks of the year.

CopperKettle

It might be (0:

Or "It might" (without "be")

Laters!

Damkerng T.

See you!

Damkerng T.

05:50

> When the phrase containing the negation appears in its canonical position to the right of the verb, standard subject-auxiliary word order obtains. When this phrase is fronted however, as in the b-sentences, subject-auxiliary inversion, i.e. negative inversion, must occur. If negative inversion does not occur in such cases, the sentence is bad, as the following c-sentences illustrate:
a. Sam will relax at no time.
b. At no time will Sam relax. - Negative inversion
c. *At no time, Sam will relax. - Sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_inversion

Interesting... Looks like we can't explain the inversion in a stepwise movement manner (because the in-process steps will be ungrammatical).

CopperKettle

06:10

@DamkerngT. Yes, the article mentions a "discontinuity": "As with subject-auxiliary inversion in general, negative inversion results in a discontinuity and is therefore a problem for theories of syntax."

(back to reading)

Anonymous

07:16

@CopperKettle In "... will Twitter be liable ...", the finite verb is will, the first in the chain

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That's okay.

Anonymous

We often come up with syntactic processes to relate sets of sentences together.

Anonymous

For example, we relate passive sentences to active sentences via passivization.

Anonymous

But there are many passive sentences with no direct active source.

CopperKettle

Good morning, @snailboat! I see.. I just did not thought of auxiliaries as finites

Anonymous

07:17

@CopperKettle Here, did is finite, so thought must be non-finite: "did not think of"

CopperKettle

@snailboat Oh, then "have not thought" (0:

I just caught a little cold and overindulged on caffeine..

Anonymous

@CopperKettle That's tricky because for think, both the past tense and past participle have the same form, thought

Anonymous

The past tense thought is a finite form: "I think, I thought"

Anonymous

The past participle thought is not, and it follows the perfect auxiliary have in perfect constructions: "I have thought"

Anonymous

We can see the difference clearly if we substitute a verb which has different forms for each category

Anonymous

07:19

"I did not take" "I have not taken"

CopperKettle

Oh, so "did not thought" must be a common mistake among non natives

Anonymous

"I did not think" "I have not thought"

CopperKettle

nods

Here's a question from a novice

1

Q: Just + simple past

I don't know if I'm supposed to write an intro before the question since I'm new here lol I'd like to know if it's correct to use just followed by the simple past, e.g.: I just watched the first episode. I'm a little bit confused because I see people using both forms. Thanks in advance!

grammar

Damkerng T.

@snailboat nods

Anonymous

Both forms? I see one example. What's the other form?

CopperKettle

07:23

She implies "I've just watched"

She is uncertain should we always use the Present Perfect or it is okay to use Simple Past too

Anonymous

Ah, I see. I wouldn't've guessed

Anonymous

Since they didn't mention the other form, and there's no expectation in my mind for have there

Anonymous

I suppose they learned the version with have first

Anonymous

Here is a similarly confused question:

Anonymous

1

Q: Do 'already' and 'just' require the present perfect?

Compare: 'We already gave him a response'. 'We have already given him a response'. Do 'already' and 'just' strictly require the present perfect?

adverbs present-perfect-tense

CopperKettle

07:30

My guess is "I've just" is for news, "I just" is for emphasis

Anonymous

I wouldn't say I just is for emphasis

Anonymous

In AmE, it's the unmarked choice

Anonymous

I've just is less common

CopperKettle

But in Britain, people still take the trouble to pronounce "ve"?

Anonymous

Well, it's not like there's a secret 've there in AmE that we're not bothering to pronounce

Anonymous

07:34

Otherwise we'd say "I just been to the store" when we meant "I've just been to the store"

Anonymous

Which is possible in some dialects but non-standard

CopperKettle

Don't worry, never through me shall this US anti-"'ve" conspiracy be disclosed.

Anonymous

Haha.

CopperKettle

(0:

Anonymous

You can say 've if you like!

Anonymous

07:35

Most people I know don't.

Damkerng T.

What is strange is that I usually feel more comfortable with "I just did." but "I've ... already."

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. The usual reasons for using a perfect construction apply

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

Although already doesn't require a perfect construction either, it fits quite well with one

Damkerng T.

0

Q: Change of speech "future tense"

1 Direct speech: He said,"I shall unlock the secrets of their success". Indirect speech(book answer): He said that he should unlock the secrets of their success. Indirect speech(my answer): He said that he would unlock the secrets of their success. I think my answer is correct I have two reas...

modal-verbs reported-speech direct-speech

It's quite likely that this one will be left unanswered.

Anonymous

07:41

You could put a bounty on it!

Anonymous

I mean, in a couple days when it becomes eligible.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

It's true that should is related to shall as a morphological past tense form

Anonymous

However, I suspect many native speakers would have trouble giving the answer the book expects

Anonymous

That connection is moribund

Damkerng T.

07:43

The choices the book picked are weird, imo.

Anonymous

Should is hardly used that way anymore

Anonymous

Of course, most speakers would say will instead of shall in the direct version, too

Anonymous

Shall sounds particularly pompous

Damkerng T.

Ah, that, too!

Anonymous

So it'd be will → would,

Anonymous

07:45

but in the book's sentence shall is okay because of the formal, pompous tone: "I shall unlock the secrets of their success!"

Anonymous

Of course, no one actually talks like that

Anonymous

Even so

Anonymous

Compare this example from CGEL:

Anonymous

> Ed said, 'I shall do it in my own time.'
> Ed said that he would do it in his own time.

Anonymous

Shall can be thought of as a variant of will in this sort of context

Damkerng T.

07:48

Does CGEL say anything about should for shall in this case?

Anonymous

But in AmE, shall is almost never used this way

Anonymous

The only people who still use shall like this are people who had it drilled into their heads as a prescriptive rule in school

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

It can still be found in hyper-formal speech

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. In CGEL, should/would/could/might are analyzed as past tense forms ("preterites") of shall/will/can/may

Anonymous

07:50

But they don't have the same status as normal past tense forms

Anonymous

And in each case the relationship is a bit different

Anonymous

It's strongest in the cases of will → would and can → could

Anonymous

For some speakers may and might have become unrelated

Damkerng T.

nods

Oh!

Anonymous

The semantics and usage of should are different from the semantics and usage of shall

Anonymous

07:52

So the relationship is somewhat tenuous

Damkerng T.

Should in the present time is quite common, I think.

Anonymous

Yes, should is a much more common word than shall in general

Anonymous

It only functions as a backshifted shall in a rather small percent of utterances

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

I feel the connection is weaker than how it's presented in CGEL, but that may be because I'm an AmE speaker

Damkerng T.

07:56

Do the schools teach backshifting (the mechanic, not the term) to native English speaking boys and girls?

Or does it just come naturally?

Anonymous

> It is clear from the data presented in §§9.8.1-3 that the relation between should and shall and between might and may is significantly less sytematic than that between could and can or would and will. While could and would are unquestionably the preterite counterparts of present tense can and will respectively, the status of should and might as preterite forms is far less clear-cut. (CGEL p.202)

2

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Native English speakers are taught almost no grammar

Damkerng T.

Not even indirect speech... interesting!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I would expect many (most?) native speakers to be unaware that there's any grammar related to reported speech

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Anonymous

08:01

"Grammar" in school usually means memorizing some prescriptive rules, saying "X and I" instead of "Me and X", saying "If I were" rather than "If I was", avoiding non-standard dialect forms

Anonymous

Likewise, in popular usage, "semantics" means "something unimportant; quibbling over details that don't matter"

Anonymous

As in the phrase "That's just semantics"

Anonymous

These subjects are not studied the way linguists would present them

Anonymous

For that matter, pronunciation in American school is taught with a rather useless system

Anonymous

From what I understand, the IPA is used in the UK, though

CopperKettle

08:03

Do they still teach to say "Jim and I" instead of "Jim and me"?

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I guess you're talking about phonics.

Anonymous

@CopperKettle Instead of "Me and Jim"

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Oh, phonics is good

Damkerng T.

Oh! So it must be something else.

CopperKettle

@snailboat Oh, "me" cannot be at the end?

Anonymous

08:04

@CopperKettle That's not the case

Anonymous

It's just that the natural word order in a subject is like this: "Me and Jim just saw a movie"

Anonymous

"Jim and me" is also okay

CopperKettle

@snailboat but rarer?

Anonymous

Yeah

Anonymous

Prescriptively, "Jim and I" would be the correct version in this sentence

Anonymous

08:05

This is one of the most successful prescriptive rules

CopperKettle

I guess Janis Joplin was not taught this to perfection.

Me and Bobby McGee

"Me and Bobby McGee" is a song written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster, originally performed by Roger Miller. Others performed the song later, including the Grateful Dead, Kristofferson himself, and Janis Joplin who topped the U.S. singles chart with the song in 1971 after her death, making the song the second posthumous number-one single in U.S. chart history after "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding. Billboard ranked Joplin's version as the No. 11 song for 1971. == History == In the original version of the song, Bobby is a woman. Joplin, who was allegedly a lover (but also...

"Bobby McGee and I" (0:

Anonymous

Well, it's not like there's anything wrong with ignoring the prescriptive rule

Anonymous

"Me and Bobby McGee", at any rate, is a perfectly normal noun phrase

Anonymous

Is it used as a subject in the lyrics?

CopperKettle

Yes, the phrase is used a lot

Anonymous

08:07

Most people who say "me and X" who are not children are perfectly capable of using the standard form if they feel like it

Anonymous

You may be interested in Thomas Grano's thesis: ling.umd.edu/~tgrano/uht.pdf

CopperKettle

To me, the form with me sounds better

Anonymous

Whoops, the link's dead!

Anonymous

Just a moment

Damkerng T.

Oh, no!

Anonymous

08:09

quarplet.com/papers/…

CopperKettle

Thanks, @snailboat!

In Russian, we say "we with him went to the lake" (speaking of just two persons)

Damkerng T.

Oh, just two!?

CopperKettle

Yes, the use of the "inclusive we" is a-okay

Anonymous

Neat!

CopperKettle

It's not like I were naming myself "we", as a King might. (0:

I('ve) answered that question on "I'(ve) just watched the series"

Anonymous

08:18

Particularly in BrE, there's a non-royal singular us

Anonymous

Where us is used informally to mean "me"

Anonymous

(I'm not really aware of this usage having entered AmE)

CopperKettle

Like "the shop attendant showed us the new car"? No, that seems ambiguous

Anonymous

No, like, "Give us a hand, will you?" (when there is no one else to help in the salient context)

CopperKettle

Interesting!

Anonymous

08:23

books.google.co.jp/…

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Believe it or not, it's the same in Thai.

Anonymous

The book says BrE singular us is used to make requests, in particular, sound more friendly

CopperKettle

4

Q: Is it common for British English speakers to use "us" instead of "me"?

If someone is keeping a secret, in the US one might say "tell me!" However, I was in the UK and I heard a person say "tell us!" although she did not appear to be with anyone. Am I misunderstanding or is this common?

plural british-english singular collective-nouns

Anonymous

And they say it's found all over England, but the data suggest it might be more common in the North

Anonymous

Hey, it's in AuE too, according to a comment there!

Anonymous

08:25

It's not a usual feature of AmE, though.

Anonymous

It's readily understandable here, but it's something I associate with BrE speakers

CopperKettle

I guess that's why one guy wrote "A lot of sunderlanders do this!" <-- Northern England

Damkerng T.

เรา usually means we, but depending on how it's used, it could mean, I, or even, you.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Interesting!

CopperKettle

Yes, interesting.

Anonymous

08:26

In Japanese, it's common for first-person pronouns over time to take on uses as second-person pronouns

Anonymous

I don't really know the mechanism for that shift

CopperKettle

Maybe they are extremely polite, and third-person pronouns seem politer to them

Anonymous

In the case of ono(re) / unu, it's rude

Anonymous

In the case of jibun, I think it's not, but I'm not as familiar with that dialect as I'd like to be

Damkerng T.

เรา meaning you is usually used by a teacher when talking to a student.

Anonymous

08:28

(Unu is archaic, anyway, so it'll only show up in fiction)

CopperKettle

@snailboat Here goes my theory..

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Does it have a literal meaning?

CopperKettle

@DamkerngT. Is it a "plural" you?

Damkerng T.

Not really. But there is a related word that means "body".

Anonymous

Ah, I see

Damkerng T.

08:29

@CopperKettle It could be used as either singular or plural.

Anonymous

Japanese has a large class of personal pronouns, and they're all derived from regular nouns

Anonymous

Well, almost all.

Anonymous

Old Japanese had a "real" pronoun system like, say, English does

Anonymous

I'm always curious to hear where pronouns come from, if it can be answered

Damkerng T.

That makes it sound like modern Japanese pronouns aren't real. :-)

Anonymous

08:31

Well, it's up for debate.

Anonymous

As far as I'm concerned, they are actual pronouns.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

But some folks like to argue that Japanese lacks true pronouns and just has nouns

Anonymous

19

Q: What languages lack personal pronouns, and why?

The Japanese language lacks personal pronouns in the IE sense. Japanese is very pro-drop, and often sentences will be constructed so personal pronouns do not appear, and the agents which the pronouns would have referred to are implicit from the context. In the first person, however, pronouns do ...

japanese pronoun word-classes

Damkerng T.

What is perhaps not very hard, but why perhaps is!

Anonymous

08:34

Japanese pronouns, though, show grammaticalization over time

Anonymous

All the tell-tale signs are present

Damkerng T.

Was that jlawler our JL the professsor?

Anonymous

Phonetic erosion: watakusi became atakusi, watasi, atasi, atai, ate, wassi, wasi, assi, asi, watai, wate, wai, watti, etc.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Yes, that is John Lawler

Damkerng T.

Ah, phonetic erosion is interesting!

@snailboat I was curious because I expected the name would be the same network-wide.

Anonymous

08:36

Semantic bleaching: watashi does not mean "personal matters", unlike the word it's derived from

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. In this case you can tell because the accounts are linked

Damkerng T.

Oh, I didn't check that.

(on iPad at the moment)

Anonymous

Oh, also, Japanese pronouns behave differently with respect to number

Damkerng T.

Eh?

Anonymous

In Japanese, nouns are generally unmarked for number and have both singular and plural interpretations available in any given context

Anonymous

08:38

But watashi is specifically singular

Anonymous

It cannot mean "we" or "us"

Anonymous

An associative plural marker like -tachi is obligatory if you want to use it in the plural

Anonymous

Whereas, say, hon, can mean "book" or "books"

Anonymous

Although watashi is etymologically derived from a regular noun, it seems clear to me that it now belongs to a separate pronomial class!

Damkerng T.

Watashi sounds like a real pronoun indeed.

Anonymous

08:40

The plural thingy is true of most pronouns in Japanese, by the way, but there are exceptions, just like how in English us we you and they are exceptions with respect to number

CopperKettle

Is there a word Mawashi?

Anonymous

Yes

CopperKettle

I recall it being used in Karate (0:

Anonymous

The nominal or continuative form of the verb mawasu 'turn'

Anonymous

Ah, in that case

Damkerng T.

08:40

@CopperKettle Oh, cool!

CopperKettle

@DamkerngT. I'm not a Karate fighter, just heard of "Mawashi Giri" or something like that

Anonymous

The continuative form of almost any Japanese verb can be used like a noun, and so it's common for nouns to be derived from them

Anonymous

In that case, mawashi would be a derived noun and not a verb form

CopperKettle

I see.

Anonymous

The key sense of mawasu is causing something to turn/rotate/wrap around

Damkerng T.

08:42

@CopperKettle Hehe, I only know kamehameha. :-)

CopperKettle

@DamkerngT. I never heard that word. (0:

Anonymous

I don't know karate, mind you

Damkerng T.

@CopperKettle It's from Dragon Balls.

Anonymous

Kamehameha is a pun on Kamehameha the Great

Anonymous

Notably, kame in Japanese means "turtle" and ha means "wave"

Damkerng T.

08:44

Oh! This is new to me.

Anonymous

As a whole, the meaning of kamehameha in Japanese is non-obvious, but anyone would spot the kame and ha I think :-)

CopperKettle

(0:

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I think almost all the names in Dragon Ball are some kind of joke or another :-)

Anonymous

But I haven't read most of it

Anonymous

I have the first few volumes!

Damkerng T.

08:45

I didn't know that!

Anonymous

It's surprisingly cute for a martial arts manga

Damkerng T.

It started out as something cute.

Anonymous

Uh-huh, I wasn't as crazy about all the extended fighting scenes and such

Anonymous

That's probably why I only read the beginning

Damkerng T.

I think it's a very useful plot. This plot can keep a series running for a long time.

Anonymous

08:48

Well, apparently it can! :-)

Damkerng T.

Another similar plot is used in Hunter x Hunter, I think.

CopperKettle

I've just tried to look on the web for the history of Russian personal pronouns, but there's nothing known of their origin. They just arose from nothing. The only interesting bit is that some pronouns used to have a "two-person" form (I -> We (two) -> We (all))

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

►

Damkerng T.

Jackie Chun!

Anonymous

08:50

That was the funniest part of the comics

Anonymous

Out of the part I read :-)

Damkerng T.

:D

Anonymous

But it continues on for a looong time.

Anonymous

There's forty-two volumes!

Damkerng T.

Very, very long!

Anonymous

08:52

I got the last volume just to see how it turned out, and they were all in space

Damkerng T.

Hmm... Must be longer than Dr. Slump, I thunk.

Anonymous

And Gokuu had grown up!

Damkerng T.

And they can upgrade their power over upgrades!

Anonymous

@CopperKettle I suppose pronouns in general must have some sort of origin, but it seems like for most there isn't much to trace them to...

CopperKettle

@snailboat nods

Anonymous

08:54

We've got Proto-Indo-European *yu and *me- as the source of English you and me

Damkerng T.

I think most pronouns in all languages would be with the languages since the beginning.

Anonymous

But what would be really interesting is to find out how they arose when they first appeared

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Old Japanese had a "true" pronomial system with similarly mysterious origins

CopperKettle

@snailboat Same here, Ya and Mne

Damkerng T.

@CopperKettle Ah, that's not very far from English!

Anonymous

08:55

One of the original personal pronouns, wa(re), is still around

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. English and Russian are both Indo-European

CopperKettle

@DamkerngT. No, I've mistaken. "You" is not Ya (0:

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Anonymous

So it's not surprising if we find cognates

Anonymous

Ware and its reduplicated form wareware, along with the genitive form wa-ga

CopperKettle

08:56

But for me, we have mne, menya, mnoy etc (different cases)

Anonymous

Japanese wa-ga is "my; our". It's one of those exceptions to the number system I mentioned earlier

Anonymous

That ga is a genitive particle which, in modern Japanese, would normally be no instead

Anonymous

But the genitive form wa-ga is lexicalized, so ga has stuck around!

CopperKettle

nods

Anonymous

Reflexive onore is still around, too

Anonymous

08:59

I guess that's about it for personal pronouns in Japanese

Transcript for