« first day (2104 days earlier)      last day (2811 days later) » 

3:00 PM
@Cerberus Which witch would a witchchuck chuck if a withchuck chucked their witch?
 
Ha.
You win.
 
Yay!
 
@terdon How much cous cous would a cuscus cuss if a cuscus could cuss cous cous?
 
bring -> brang, everyone knows that
 
OK about whether, do you say 'Whether x is the case' or do you say 'whether or not x is the case'?
 
3:00 PM
@Randal'Thor Heh, nice one.
 
or 'whether x is the case or not'
 
Depends on context, doesn't it? [that will depend on] whether X is the case But, whether X is the case or not [, I'm still going]
 
Is this correct as a title of a banner? "Shavadoon printing and advertising"
 
@MartinAJ Maybe capitalize? "Shavadoon Printing and Advertising"
 
@MartinAJ Could be, yes. If Shavadoon is the name of the business, I'd set it apart with a colon though. Like this: "Shavadoon: Printing and Advertising"
Hmm. Now that I look at it again, I'm not sure.
Nah, no colon.
 
3:03 PM
@terdon That's it, I just don't know. I remember someone saying years ago to remove the 'or not'. and they didn't explain why.
 
@Mitch If you had "regardless of whether ...", then "or not" is redundant. Likewise with @terdon's "depends on whether ...". Otherwise, "whether" just gives you the positive case, and "or not" is required for the negative.
 
@terdon :no colon:
 
Ah ok ... thank you guys
 
@Lawrence ok. that makes sense.
 
> Regardless of whether it will be raining, I'm going to church on Sunday.
 
3:06 PM
Whether it will be raining or not, I'm not going to church.
 
@Cerberus Yes, the "or not" is latent in "regardless".
 
@Cerberus I think you meant irregardless. Tsk.
 
so both cerb's and my statements are OK?
@terdon literally
 
I think or not is still possible in that example.
@terdon Silence!
 
@Cerberus But maybe "regardless of whether it rains ..."
 
3:08 PM
I do find Cerb's example a bit odd. I would probably have said something like regardless of the rain, I'll be going
 
argh! so complex!
 
> I'm going to church on Sunday whether it rains or not.
 
Regardless of the weather, I'm not going to church.
 
@Cerberus Possible, but redundant. :)
 
@Lawrence Agreed.
 
3:08 PM
Yeah, I think the regardless . . . verbING is what makes it strange.
 
@Lawrence Yes, I changed my tenses so many times...
 
I think redundancy is the context problem altogether
 
@terdon I agree: the whole whether thing is redundant there.
 
@terdon I think verbing weirds language
@Cerberus 'whether' is redundant?
 
I should have constructed a better example...
@Mitch When it can be replaced with a simpler construction.
Preposition + whether + clause is more complex than preposition + noun.
 
3:10 PM
@Mitch meh.
And thanks.
 
Regardless of whether it rains → regardless of the rain.
 
regardless of rain.
 
Although the latter may suggest that it will be raining for sure?
 
yeah, that.
 
Regardless of potential rain?
 
3:12 PM
I think a normal human would say "Whether it's raining or not"
Or, if they're being funny, "Weather it's raining or not..."
 
@Lawrence I would say you need or not when the whether clause is elliptical, i.e. when the clause that it depends on is omitted.
 
"Whether the weather allows it or not. ;)
 
regardless of the weather.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Is anyone in here a normal human?
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 In which sentence?
 
3:13 PM
or regardless of weather...hmm.
 
@Cerberus Example, please?
 
What's a normal human?
 
I would say weather permitting...
 
@Cerberus Instead of "Regardless of rain" or whatever.
 
@Lawrence Whether it's raining or not, she's still going.
 
3:14 PM
@Cerberus That doesn't meant the same thing though
 
@Cerberus But if the weather literally doesn't permit it, you aren't going. It's only if the weather hampers you that you can still go anyway.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 OK it works in that construction, when you have regardless, but not in all other situations.
 
Whether it's raining or not, I'm going shopping != Weather permitting, I'm going shopping
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No.
 
Whether my weather gear allows me to weather the weather?
 
3:15 PM
"Weather permitting, I'm going to church" means you're only going if it doesn't rain.
 
It all depends on the strength of the rain
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Rain or shine.
 
@Cerberus That doesn't have "regardless". The "or not" is needed if there's no regardless or similar.
 
@Randal'Thor I'm not one to out when it's raining. I'm made of sugar.
 
@Cerberus Yes.
:-)
 
3:15 PM
@Randal'Thor The dots were meant to indicate a twist!
@Lawrence Yes, and I was trying to generalise that by calling it elliptical.
It works just like whatever.
 
Religious wars were started over less.
 
> Whether weather permits or not, I'll go. I'll not let rain reign over me nor wind wind me up.
 
Whether permitting
 
@Randal'Thor Maybe.
@Randal'Thor Ha!
 
@Randal'Thor of if it be bees
OK, now that that has been totally muddied...
'lightening' is not and has not ever been a word, right?
unless you're trying to lighten the load
and that act is called 'lightening the load'
right?
 
3:20 PM
Actually odo lists it
A drop in the level of the womb during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.
 
I'm doing my part to keep things on topic.
You can't say now that I'm always off topic.
 
@Cerberus But I don't think "whether it rains or not, I'm going to church" has any ellipsis, other than with "or (does) not (rain)". I don't think it's fair to say that "whether it rains, I'm going to church" is ungrammatical because of ellipsis when the ellipsis comes into play only when you add "or not". :)
 
Hehe.
 
@Helmar Oh...that's perfectly fine, as an extension of lighten meaning to lessen the weight of
 
@Lawrence Oh, no, those are two different instances of ellipsis.
The or not is or may be elliptical.
But the ellipsis I was talking about is [regardless of] whether...
> [Regardless of] whether it rains or not, I'm going to church.
 
3:22 PM
@Mitch Well, the baby is still getting heavier until it's out
 
lightening as a variant spelling of false/flok etymology of 'lightning' that bright flashy stuff in the sky during thunderstorms.
 
This seems elliptical to me ^.
 
@Helmar OMG and they keep getting heavier
 
@Mitch Very true :D
 
@Mitch Or the mood.
 
3:22 PM
@Cerberus But is it valid to say that "regardless of" was ellipsed in that case?
 
Or the sky?
 
@Randal'Thor ye, metaphorically.
 
@Lawrence I'm wondering whether it is valid, and I'm tending towards "yes" at the moment!
 
:)
 
I feel like some people have made a case for 'lightening bug'.
I have negative tendentious words for those people.
 
3:24 PM
MW actually lists lightening with lightning
to give out flashes of lightning
 
I'm still folowwing the 'whether' discussion. Just... I have no comment yet. when the decision is made to push the button to release the warheads, then I'll show up.
 
@Helmar God damn them
 
@Lawrence What is it called when a subordinating word can be attached to any kind of main clause, like if or because, as opposed to e.g. relative and interrogative pronouns, which can only be used when the main clause meets certain conditions?
 
@Mitch Indeed xD
 
3:25 PM
@Cerberus The fact that the words aren't needed doesn't mean that the words are missing, right?
 
@Lawrence Indeed not. But I think they may be missing here.
I'm arguing that whether is of the latter category, like relative and interrogative pronouns.
 
@Helmar They all seem to be right all up until this one: "2: to give out flashes of lightning"
 
@Cerberus Aye, there's the rub.
 
Perhaps whether is best considered an interrogative pronoun, according to my theory?
 
@Mitch Yeah, that totally steps out of line
 
3:26 PM
that is the kind of devolution into swamp creatures we should all endeavor stamp out.
along with consistent metaphors.
 
@Cerberus @Mitch here come the warheads. :)
 
sticking with one metaphor as bridge we won't count
 
@Lawrence I don't know that they are warheads.
Tchrist often uses the that construction.
 
coordinate clause?
 
@Cerberus Sorry, noob here as far as Linguistics is concerned.
 
3:28 PM
adverbial clause?
 
Which to me sounds pleasantly old fashioned.
@Lawrence Oh OK.
 
Where is schoolhouse rock to tell us the answer?
Oh. Youtube.
 
@Cerberus Still trying to parse this. What's the latter category - "missing", or "interrogative pronouns"?
 
@Mitch You forgot the diaeresis.
 
@Cerberus This ain't the New YOrker
Or maybe it needs to be...
here's a pet peeve of mine...
The Dorgi.
a pet peeve pet.
 
3:29 PM
@Lawrence The category of subordinating words that only work with certain kinds of main clauses. Unlike if and because, which work with any kind of main clause.
 
wait..here's ther real peeve.
 
> *John lived in the forest, why the witch desired him.
> *The forest was thick, who liked to eat children.
 
People who pronounce the abbreviation for a commonly held store (where the owners are also the primary customers in bulk) as though it were housing for poultry.
 
@Cerberus Can't whether be used everywhere if or because is used?
 
Why and who don't work in those sentences. ^
@Lawrence I would argue that it cannot. Except with ellipsis.
 
3:32 PM
The abbreviation for cooperative pronounced 'coop' rather than 'co op'
this is the only confusion in english orthography that would be helped by the diaeresis.
 
@Mitch We use diaeresis in the English room!
@Mitch Ow, that's silly.
I wouldn't.
 
but anybody who knows anything should pronounce 'coop', as short for cooperative, in two syllables.
 
People might think noone were an old spelling variant of noon.
 
@Cerberus that's why you spell that 'no one'
 
Or noöne.
 
3:34 PM
cut out the middle man by introducing a middle space
 
@Cerberus There may be instances that whether can be used when if can't - e.g. "Whether it rains depends on several things" - but for the reverse, nothing comes to mind immediately.
 
People don't like no one because it's everyone, someone.
 
@Cerberus then we're reduced to communicating on macs.
@Cerberus Anyone?
 
... Oops, scrap that.
 
Bueller?
 
3:35 PM
@Lawrence No. "If X is true, Y is also true" =/= "Whether X is true, Y is also true".
 
Nobody.
Nothing
 
@Lawrence I would say it's also elliptical in that example.
 
Never
 
@Mitch Whaaat?!
@Mitch Exactly.
 
@Cerberus Hmm, things that aren't there are really hard to spot. :)
 
3:37 PM
@Lawrence Sometimes "whether" should be used because "if" would be ambiguous. "They'll ask me if I eat" could mean either "they'll ask me whether I eat" or "if I eat, they'll ask me".
 
@Randal'Thor Yup, I got that. Brain's in a slow gear at the moment.
 
@Lawrence Quite!
 
@Cerberus I'd go along with an ellipsed "Regardless of ..." in that example. Ok, I can see where you're coming from now.
@Randal'Thor (... But thanks, all the same. :) )
 
FYI Mod election nominations close in 4 hours
 
Last call. Last call, everyone!
 
3:44 PM
You hoping for a primary? ;-)
 
Kinda.
Mostly just for giggles.
 
an extra week of giggles
 
Where's the evan carrol when we need him?
 
coughs
Also, ohai @Randal'Thor. Didn't see you come in.
 
or the time cube guy
 
3:46 PM
some peoples personality changes when they're typing.
 
omg the time cube guy. forgot about him.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 ??
 
I can run, if you really want an 11th candidate :-P
 
and some people not.
 
um.
 
3:46 PM
@Mitch do you know what time cube is?
I don't think he's on SE.
 
is that some reference to Dr Who?
or Marvel comics?
or a new energy candy bar?
 
@KitZ.Fox waves I just came in to mention that a question I'd found in the CV queue here would be great for SFF, and then Cerb and people lured me into conversation.
 
I do kind of wonder why The Evan didn't run.
@Randal'Thor Oh, which?
Did you flag it?
 
have I forgotten things embedded in our culture? like the water fish swim through, I am unaware of what is unspoken?
 
3:48 PM
@Randal'Thor Oh, I see it.
 
@KitZ.Fox This one, currently with 3 CVs. Yep, I flagged it.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I won't regret seeing that will I? Will I be able to unsee it?
 
@Mitch it's more "reading" than "Seeing"
also, the wayback link is wonky, the page redirects. hit "stop" before it does that.
 
@KitZ.Fox I can run and blame your desire for a primary in my application ;)
 
> Belly-Button Is the Signature
Of Your Personal Creator -
I Believe Her Name Mama.

Pastor Told His Flock That
God Created All Of Them -
Truth Was That They All had
Mama Made Belly Buttons,
Church Was Full Of Liars.
I'd say "you can't make this stuff up", but clearly, someone did.
 
3:51 PM
@Randal'Thor I think it's fine to stay here.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Oh. I only vaguely remember that.
Makes a lot of sense.
 
But I did prune the comments.
 
Everything except the margins. Now that is crazy
 
Let me know if it does get closed though. I'd be happy to migrate it.
 
@KitZ.Fox where would it go?
 
3:53 PM
@KitZ.Fox OK, I'll try to keep an eye on it.
 
I'll leave the flag for now too, to help me remember.
 
@KitZ.Fox Yeah, some of those comments were kinda nasty.
 
It's not a good place to discuss a person's qualifications.
 
@Lawrence Oh, yay!
happy dance
 
4:09 PM
On that note, ... see you all in the transcripts! Nice chatting with you all. Happy start of the next phase of the elections, when it starts, regardless of whether it's the second or third phase :) .
 
Shouldn't the side bar say "current events" instead of "upcoming events" when referring to the ongoing moderator elections?
 
Why should it even be qualified?
 
@Tonepoet Good point, "Events" would be totally sufficient
 
@Helmar It's the ending that's upcoming.
 
The end is nigh.^^
So it's more an announcement of less trolling to be expected in eight days, than an information for people to engage in the event?
 
4:20 PM
@Helmar Most events last for much less time than mod elections. It makes sense for something like a movie night or other chatroom event to be marked several days in advance as an "upcoming event" even if it only lasts an hour or two, and elections just use the same framework even if they're technically ongoing events rather than upcoming.
 
@Randal'Thor yeah, but they could also just use a better label for it.
 
@Randal'Thor Ah, good to know, I wasn't aware of that. Did they announce the elections in that box before the nomination phase?
 
@Helmar I don't think it's public knowledge that there's going to be an election until the nomination phase starts.
 
@Randal'Thor Of course it isn't unless it's announced anywhere
I was just wondering if I didn't see it before, or if it wasn't even there.
I am just guessing, but probably the mods didn't spontaneously start it ;)
 
4:47 PM
@Lawrence I wish you the same thing!
 
What's the general rule (if any) for modeled/modelled, organisation/organization etc.? Suppose I'd like to write BrE.
 
@Keepthesemind Modeled and organization are AmE; modelled and organisation are BrE.
For BrE, use a double L for the past tense of verbs like model, travel, channel, and always use S instead of Z for "-ise" verbs.
 
Well, the z is used by some Brits.
 
@Randal'Thor Super. Thanks.
 
I think it was Oxford that spelled organize?
 
4:52 PM
@Cerberus Now what?
 
> In fact, the ‘-ize’ forms have been in use in English spelling since the 15th century: they didn’t originate in American use, even though they are now standard in US English. The first example for the verb organize in the Oxford English Dictionary is from around 1425, from an English translation of a treatise on surgery written by the French physician Guy de Chauliac:

The brayne after þe lengþ haþ 3 ventriclez, And euery uentricle haþ 3 parties & in euery partie is organized [L. organizatur] one vertue.
 
Do Americans say "advertise" or "advertize"?
 
No idea.
 
Advertise I think.
I've never seen anybody spell it with a z.
 
4:57 PM
Sometimes the reason American English differs from British English is because the American variation is actually more traditional. Keep in mind that different habits will be the ones that wane among different groups of divergent people.
 
So it is.
 
@Tonepoet Why do you say 'wane'?
 
Because I thought it would be more literal than die.
 

« first day (2104 days earlier)      last day (2811 days later) »