English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

02:49

0

A: How does 'ask something of somebody' mean 'to expect or demand something'?

The word "of" used to mean "from". It's sometimes still used in that sense. Thus, the phrase "ask something of somebody" really means "ask [for] something from somebody".

> The word "of" used to mean "from".

Somehow I doubt that.

Ben Kovitz

10:14

@DamkerngT. Check out this answer that I posted on ELU. I think you're right that "of" doesn't mean "from", but its ancient root meant something very much like "away from", and this still shows up in various modern usages. Really, though, regarding the question about "ask something of somebody", it's probably best to just think of "of" as English's general-purpose, catch-all preposition, capable of meaning any relationship at all.

Oops, I misread. Yes, "of" comes from the same root as "off", as in "get off of", which is sort of from-like.

Ben Kovitz

11:34

@Catija Excellent, thorough job on "robbery"!

Damkerng T.

13:32

@BenKovitz Oh, that's interesting! So, if I understand you correctly, both of and off share the same root.

Hello, @snailboat!

Hey, we come to the room at about the same time!

Anonymous

Hello!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Yes, but of shifted in usage quite a bit after off developed

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

Of is more or less the default preposition in English these days

Damkerng T.

I wouldn't have thought of that myself, that of and off once were the same.

I guess it's another case that our translations did something to the Thai language again. :-)

Anonymous

13:36

Well, they aren't two descendants of the same root

Anonymous

That is, they're not siblings

Anonymous

Rather, off is from of

Damkerng T.

This work is of interest in Thai can be understood literally as This work is something of interest.

@snailboat Oh!

Anonymous

They gradually came to be differentiated over a span of a couple centuries

Damkerng T.

I'd say they're totally different now.

Anonymous

13:38

Yes, once they came to be differentiated of lost the senses expressed by off

Anonymous

Of is now so versatile that, most of the time, no trace of the original meaning remains

Damkerng T.

nods

Without context, how would you read "actual period length", between [[actual period] length] and [actual [period length]]?

> ell.stackexchange.com/questions/51350/…

Anonymous

The latter, if I'm forced to pick

Damkerng T.

nods

Thanks!

0

Q: How to dissect/parse 'enumeration ... does not presuppose something not enumerated'?

Source: United States v. Lopez, 1995, US Supreme Court, majority opinion by Rehnquist The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated power...

A very long question!

I guess it's just about "enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated".

"enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated" doesn't mean "enumeration of powers presupposes something enumerated".

I think that's pretty much about it.

Anonymous

I really wish you could use formatting in multi-line messages.

Damkerng T.

13:48

Sorry about the formatting! I was lazy!

Anonymous

I don't mean you! :-)

Anonymous

That's a generic you

Damkerng T.

I think I've once written a comment on a similar question by our LawA51P.

@snailboat Ah, I see!

Anonymous

I was thinking of quoting the OED on of

Anonymous

But it'll take a bunch of messages :-)

Anonymous

13:55

> The primary sense was away, away from, a sense now obsolete, except in so far as it is retained under the spelling off. All the existing uses of of are derivative; many so remote as to retain no trace of the original sense, and so weakened down as to be in themselves the expression of the vaguest and most intangible of relations.

Anonymous

> The sense-history is exceedingly complicated by reason of the introduction of senses or uses derived from other sources, the mingling of these with the main stream, and the subsequent weakening down, which often renders it difficult to assign a particular modern use to its actual source or sources.

Anonymous

> From its original sense, of was naturally used in the expression of the notions of removal, separation, privation, derivation, origin or source, starting-point, spring of action, cause, agent, instrument, material, and other senses, which involve the notion of taking, coming, arising, or resulting from.

Anonymous

> But, even in OE., this native development was affected by the translational character of the literature, and the employment of of to render L. ab, dē, or ex, in constructions where the native idiom would not have used it.

Anonymous

> Of far greater moment was its employment from the 11th c. as the equivalent of F. de, itself of composite origin, since it not merely represented L. dē in its various prepositional uses, but had come to be the Common Romanic, and so the French, substitute for the Latin genitive case.

Anonymous

> Whether of might have come independently in Eng. to be a substitute for the genitive is doubtful. In the expression of racial or national origin, we find of and the genitive app. interchangeable already in the 9th c. [...] and this might have extended in time to other uses;

Anonymous

13:55

> but the great intrusion of of upon the old domain of the genitive, which speedily extended to the supersession of the OE. genitive after adjectives, verbs, and even substantives, was mainly due to the influence of F. de.

Anonymous

> Beside this—the most far-reaching fact in the sense-history of of — the same influence is also manifest in numerous phraseological uses, and esp. in the use of of = F. de, in the construction of many verbs and adjs. Many of these can be clearly distinguished;

Anonymous

> but, in other cases, the uses derived from F. de have so blended with those derived from OE. of, giving rise again to later uses related to both, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two streams, with their many ramifications.

Anonymous

I had to put spaces around a dash for the italic markup to work right

Damkerng T.

Formatting in our chat is a pain!

Anonymous

It's true!

Anonymous

14:06

So it's difficult to answer Law Area's question

Anonymous

1

A: Does listening to English learning clips help to improve "Listening" skill?

I believe the following search will help you: Google Search: "second language" listening comprehension repetition Note that the issue of listening for comprehension is applicable to anyone attempting to learn a second language.

Anonymous

A link-only answer to nothing in particular …

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Perhaps it's another case of "It is what it is". :-)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That's not an answer

Anonymous

It's merely true

Damkerng T.

14:10

True. :D

Anonymous

Of course, there are lots of questions of etymology that are difficult or impossible to answer

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think it's hard to come up with a really good answer.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Probably, but there is of course research

Anonymous

Listen as often as you want, to the same things or different--even if you are understanding little. Just hearing the sound combinations (whether in individual, words or phrases, but especially in dialogue and descriptive material (narration)) will help get your mind used to the English sound system, including stress, tones, patterns, pauses, rythms; and it will sink in to your brain even if you cannot understand a single word. Of course, understanding what you hear is also important, but don't think you have to understand anything or everything before listening to more. /M.A. TESOL — δοῦλος 12 hours ago

Anonymous

But among all those reams of research, there's very little that supports what we might call the "incomprehensible input" hypothesis

Damkerng T.

14:15

I think it's a chicken-egg problem.

@snailboat What are the L1's of the study groups?

I think the more apart L1-L2 are (especially when L2 has a lot of missing features in L1), the more important the incomprehensible input is.

FWIW, I agree with the incomprehensible input hypothesis.

CopperKettle