« first day (2354 days earlier)      last day (2560 days later) » 

12:09 AM
Yes, that does look off.
 
 
14 hours later…
1:43 PM
Wow
What is happening to America?
Which is probably the billionth time this is being uttered
 
2:03 PM
@M.A.R. That article is not very clear.
I don't see anything super remarkable except that some fascists are protesting somewhere?
Which has always happened, in many countries.
 
@Cerberus It seems some alt-right met some alt-left, if that's a word
I'm not that aligned with the news either
 
Right, opposing groups of protesters clash.
 
But what is obvious is that America is remarkably like Iran 7 years ago
 
But it has always been like this.
 
Except it's doing it without a Mousavi
 
2:08 PM
I mean in America.
And the protests in Iran were far larger than this.
 
2:29 PM
@tchrist Would you object to me restoring the proposed duplicate message that you swept away to chat here? I have a pending flag...
 
2:55 PM
@Tonepoet Fixed
 
-3
Q: choose the correct answer according to the passage

user54175“If you want something done, ask a busy person to do it,” goes the saying. Being perpetually busy – a type A personality who can check e-mail, fold laundry, send a text message, and cook dinner, all at once – is a state that modern technology supports and that society encourages as something o...

ELL is improving!
 
@tchrist Thank you.
 
We're getting ELU-like crap.
Hello @Robbie!
 
3:15 PM
@M.A.R. Oh, so I was mistaken. They do have a separate research close reason. It seems vaguely redundant to have the dictionary close reason though...
 
@Tonepoet Well, that's not how most of us take it to mean though
We take it to mean 'lack of context' most of the time
Which is closer to Unclear
The dictionary close reason is good because it's usually very applicable to whatever we're closing with it
 
 
2 hours later…
5:04 PM
@Cerberus The passage that I thought was saying Egyptian wasn't first was a bit of innuendo:
> [Egyptian] Hieroglyphic writing appeared rather suddenly, in nearly full-blown form, around 3000 B.C. ... I find it suspicious_ that no evidence of a gradual development of hieroglyphs has come down to us, even though Egypt’s dry climate would have been favorable for preserving earlier experiments in writing, and though the similarly dry climate of Sumer has yielded abundant evidence of the development of Sumerian cuneiform for at least several centuries before 3000 b.c.
Which is just innuendo.
But I distinctly remember a diagram in that book where he put Egyptian as derivative from something else. But Phoenician is probably not it then, but rather Sumerian cuneiform
I'll look for the diagram
But Jared Diamond is ... questionable in his scholarship.
fascinating but questionable.
 
@Mitch Where is the innuendo in this passage? I don't see any. Maybe I'm missing something.
@Mitch Is it true that innuendos are always of sexual nature? Or can they be used in place of "insinuation" too?
 
5:26 PM
@Mitch @Cerberus can't find the diagram I am thinking of (possibly doesn't exist) in a pdf, chap 12
all he ever does is say 'may', 'could have' or places it apart from 'provably independent initiation' like Sumerian cuneiform and Mayan
@englishstudent 'suspicious' 'no evidence' 'appeared rather suddenly' (implying that things don't really pop out of thin air, so it must have been borrowed or created out of idea diffusion, one of his theses about other means of civilization starting
@englishstudent 'innuendo' often comes up in sexual situations, but not always. 'sexual innuendo' is a set phrase which should imply that there are other forms of innuendo that are not sexual.
 
@Mitch I see, so I am confused now, because I have heard that "innuendo" is almost always of sexual nature just like the first part of its definition in Cambridge Dictionary:
> a remark or remarks that suggest something sexual
So why didn't you use "insinuation" here then?
There is a mouse in my house so I am getting Heebie Jeebies today.
 
@M.A.R. haha.
sobs in hands
@englishstudent that's only one dictionary. all the others that I've seen do not mention sex.
 
5:43 PM
Ok. Thanks.
 
@englishstudent I like the sound of innuendo better.
@englishstudent peanut butter
use peanut butter to lure them away
then get a hammer
 
and bash away
 
Good idea. Well they are so fast man.
 
on your thumb
you'll forget quickly about mice
 
5:44 PM
How can I hammer them?
Yuck.
I'm thinking a mouse trap.
 
or get a cat
win win
except for the mouse
 
So about that word "innuendo". Well, I talk to my friend sometimes who is a native speaker of English from New Zealand and we discussed this word in the past. He convinced me that it is always of sexual nature and he never trolls me, well, almost never. =) So I don't know. But thanks for the information, I was thinking something similar.
I mean when different native speakers say different things it gets confusing but he is not an expert, he just likes the language.
 
@M.A.R. yes alt-left seems to be wordish now. false equivalency. the alt-right are fascists and reactionaries (which most conservatives are not). What people call the alt-left is ... just more vocal (and more left).
@englishstudent look at the dictionary entries.
 
Yeah I know. You are right it seems.
 
pretty much everything mentioned on Urban Dictionary is of a sexual or scatalogical nature, but the words are often not limited to such situations.
 
5:53 PM
We didn't talk about Urban but yes, true.
Well I rarely go through that dictionary except for internet language and stuff.
Like for new age words or hip words these days.
 
@englishstudent I bring up UD because it is a really good example of how common it is for people to -under- generalize, to take too much of circumstances to infer meaning.
UD only mentioned out of relevancy not an actual connection about that word.
 
Yeah it says "Anything that gives off a wrong idea, or sick minded thought"
Its first definition I mean.
I just checked. I hadn't looked there at first though.
 
ugh..just looked at innuendo on UD. there's no exception to prove the rule!
 
@Mitch What does "out of idea diffusion" mean there? Sorry I don't understand.
 
@englishstudent I was being telegraphic and not saying it right. But it's one of that book's central hypotheses supporting geographical determinism. Transfer of ideas about technology (transfer of ideas = idea diffusion) is easier in geographically contiguous areas.
 
6:03 PM
Ah I see.
Thanks.
 
writing was this chapter, but then also technologies like animal husbandry or manners of agriculture
So I don't leave you too convinced, geographical determinism is not widely accepted as an explanation for cultural success.
 
oh okay.
 
JD is a well-respected ornithiologist, but his writings on anthropology, while informed by being well-travelled (due to his ornithological research), are not considered of high quality.
but read for yourself. It's all very interesting.
 
@Mitch So after checking the definitions in dictionaries it seems like I can use "innuendo", "insinuation" and "snide" interchangeably, right? What do you think?
I just want to be sure =)
Not sure about "snide" but the other two sound the same. I mean definition wise. Both mean indirect insult or an indirect derogatory remark.
@Mitch Ok I will. Is it freely available on the internet?
 
 
1 hour later…
7:18 PM
> 1. I can be easily ticked off by talking down to me.
2. I can be easily ticked off by being talked down to.
Would you care to make a stylistic choice between those two? Or does the difference seem unremarkable to you?
> 1. He must be punished by excluding him from the team.
2. He must be punished by being excluded from the team.
 
thinks
In the first pair, I much prefer your latter alternative, by being talked down to. In the second pair, I feel less strongly about it, but might again go with the longer version.
3. I can be easily ticked off by people talking down to me.
Is another version.
The thing is, one say I hate people talking down to me.
 
@tchrist Hmm. I thought so as well.
@tchrist Yes.
 
Or I hate being talked down to.
 
Well, the question arose when I was reading something written by you.
 
I can't really explain why I lean this way. From the tortuous example of some days ago, I suspect that @Cerberus may not make the same choice.
 
7:26 PM
You had picked the first construction.
 
I have written many things over the decades.
 
Right. One's preferences change.
But it was worthy of thought. It rang .. interesting in my ear.
 
Could you please tell me where the sample that inspired your question can be found?
 
> I can most easily be reached in real time by pinging me in the ELU chatroom.
 
Ah.
Yes, there seems to be some agent missing.
 
7:28 PM
It's certainly not incorrect.
I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking or something.
 
Gosh no.
 
As it appears, you can be as easily reached even without pinging you in this chatroom. :)
 
At times.
Sometimes I think we should have just one word for that, like the French do with parfois. :)
 
@tchrist I just pay more attention when I know the writer tends to be scrupulous about their prose. Helps me learn.
 
Inscrupably.
 
7:33 PM
Well, have a good day. I shall go back to my nightmares.
 
Your sun sets too soon.
Good read.
@Cerberus @Tonepoet I recant of my Latinist fallacy.
> It has been claimed that the dislike of the split infinitive is based on a comparison with classical languages. In Greek and Latin, it is impossible to split infinitives because these languages never use their infinitives together with a preposition/particle. Possibly some felt that as the construction is impossible in those languages, it was not the best English. The weakness of this argument, apart from the non sequitur of judging the syntax of one language by that of another, is that as Latin has no marker, it does not model either solution to the question of where to place one.
2
 
@englishstudent not 'snide' at all, also it is an adjective
@englishstudent 'inuendo' is closer to having more 'dirty' nuances, because 'insinuation' has none at all.
@englishstudent I gave links above
 
7:54 PM
0
Q: Comment Templates

M.A.R.Guidance is pretty important, and that's usually emphasized when we notice a new user's downvoted question without any comments. Comments are also ephemeral necessary evils — they're both pretty useful and create a lot of problems at the same time. This post serves as a comment template list. I...

 
8:23 PM
@Mitch Danke!
See you later. Have a lovely day.
 
9:08 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, no whitespace in answer, repeating characters in answer: What are the differences between "hoarse", "husky", and "raspy" when describing a person's voice? Which should describe someone with a cold? by hhhhhhhhhhh on english.SE
 
@tchrist Hmm, I based my assertion upon a similar account, as you can tell by comment under Ily's post earlier:
Unless you have evidence predating the 1834, I would recommend removing the accusations because there is no hard evidence to support them. The fact that you can't split an infinitive in Latin is suggestive, but no real reason was ever given in primary English sources other than perhaps ignorance of the practice, and most of the informative sources blame the the former Dean of Canturbury, Henry Alford, for popularizing it in 1864. Even if Latinists are to blame, who first made the mistake isn't really essential to linguistic aspect of the matter anyway. — Tonepoet 2 days ago
 
 
2 hours later…
11:30 PM
Then again, I suppose you already saw that comment, otherwise the specific article doesn't make sense. The subject we were discussing several days ago in chat was the "preposition at end", as Fowler put it, rule.
 

« first day (2354 days earlier)      last day (2560 days later) »