« first day (3174 days earlier)      last day (148 days later) » 

12:00 AM
I imagine that comparative linguistic analysis will show more direct parallels with our Germanic brother-tongues than wtih our Romance cousin-languages.
French actually changed in this only "recently", by the way.
French espérer and souhaiter no longer play by exactly the same set of rules for both.
 
Why?
> I’m especially looking for answers rooted in actual synchronic analysis, not in mere diachronic “just because” handwaving
> I’d like for us to have answers whose explanations at least require looking at the language’s historical evolution in this regard stretching back at least over the past thousand years or so, not just for the past decade or two at most.
These two sentences seem to be at odds with one another.
 
Oh maybe. The problem is that "it works like this because that's how it works" teaches me nothing.
I'd like to see what factors contributed to its unique existence over time.
 
Diachronic means following the passage of time through language.
 
Damn it.
I wrote it wrong again then.
 
Synchronic means just considering all that belongs with a specific point in time.
OK.
The terms are not very clear.
At least they're better than opt-in and opt-out, which continue to upset me.
 
12:14 AM
I want an over-time answer not a just-now one.
I've tried to fix it.
Stupid words.
 
Good.
 
I would rather that.... isn't quite the same thing because the main clause isn't in the present tense.
Maybe I should have used third-person singulars for my main clauses to make this cleaerer. Well we'll see what happens.
 
I was thinking of that, yes.
Would that...
As to wish, I'd say it always describes a counterfactual situation.
Which explains the past subjunctive (not: past simple).
 
12:55 AM
I added citations and dropped the comments into chat where they belong.
 
Just let your question stand for itself.
 
Juggling a three-ring circus of critters at home I'll tell you about later when I get back from rescuing a friend who just called stuck in the rain.
And having to pee. Too many intrusions.
 
OK.
Good luck!
 
 
2 hours later…
3:19 AM
@Cerberus Thus far, it's 12 for "NO" and 6 for "YES", which translates into 66% overall for "NO". Chimes well with the statistical research done in 2018
@Cerberus Russians have a long-standing tradition of believing bullshit from the West. For instance, Marxism - we actually built a whole state system around this shit.
 
3:35 AM
@CowperKettle Are these educated people?
 
@Cerberus Yes, with university degrees even.
 
@CowperKettle Most odd!
 
 
1 hour later…
5:11 AM
> To make the glycosylation profiling more convenient, the experimentally obtained data were entered into MODDE10.1, taking into account the analytical method used (CZE and NP HPLC).
Direct translation from Russian. I think there must be a more commonly used turn of phrase in Eglish for this
 
5:52 AM
Now its 13 NO vs. 6 YES
 
6:13 AM
I have two experiments: in the first one, a rough estimation is made of the range of fucose amounts to be added on cultivation day 0.
In the second one, this range is refined by testing, in order to adjust it and make it more precise.
I translated the first title as "Determination of the working range of fucose.."
I'm not sure how to translate the second title. "Refinement of the working range"? "Adjustment"?
"Refining estimation"? "Fine estimation"?
 
6:56 AM
@CowperKettle That "shit" was at first (early-20th-century) Leninism, a branch of Marxism (or what Russel called a Marxianism), and then a bit later, it wasn't even that.
 
 
1 hour later…
8:01 AM
@Færd Yes, Leninism was quite a radical sect of Marxism.
 
Here's a precious conversation between Russell and Lenin, for those interested: skepticva.org/excerpt-Lenin.html
3
 
 
4 hours later…
12:02 PM
 
12:50 PM
So very many SWRs are from those who mistakenly believe a single word can be a miracle cure for poor writing. Like this one:
0
Q: Looking for an expression meaning "continuing doing things in a passionate way"

luxury20041985I am writing an essay. In college, I interned at a charity school as a life coach, providing academic and emotional support to teens. Upon graduation, I continued working with teens as a school counselor. I find the "continued" too bland. I want to express though the circumstances changed (I...

Poor writing got you down? Take this SWR pill and then step back! The ladies will fall in love and the men will fall in line! You'll be popular at parties and you'll get the job you really want! Call now, operators are standing by!
 
Continuing griping about single-word requests in a passionate way
 
1:53 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body (96): What are the best yacht rentals in Dubai? by Maxoel Yachts on english.SE
 
2:38 PM
> Bot seing I haue tua duachteris, Magdalen, quhom he desyres, and Margaret, Magdelen seiklie, Margaret strang and stark, I wisse rather and desyre that in hope of barnes he take Margaret rather than Magdalen for his bedfallow. Although J prescriue him na law, bot rather gyue him his choise, that or this, quhilke lykes him best, for his plesure.
> Quhairfor for his proper and gay vertus, and bentnes of the gudwil betuene vs, and than the benifites large and ample quhilkes from our handes he sulde luk for, as he hes deseruet, J suirlie war vngrate and vnthankful gif I frilie gaue him nocht my dauchter.
^^^^ That, apparently, is from Elphege Cody’s 1895 reprint The historie of Scotland, a work translated into the vernacular by James Dalrymple around 1596 from John Leslie’s 1578 original work, De origine, moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem.
> I wish rather and desire that in hope of barnes he take Margaret rather than Magdalen for his bedfellow.
It took many centuries before fellow would come to be used in a sense that applied only to men.
However odd taking Margaret for his bedfellow might seem to us now.
seiklie meants sickly not silky. :)
quhilke and its Scots-only plural quhilkes is akin to Middle English quelk, a word you will recognize as cognate to German welch and Dutch welk, and for which we now write which.
> Certain continental forms are compounded with other derivatives of the same pronominal stem; Gothic hwēleiks with the instrumental hwē (compare hwēlauþs how great); Old Norse hvílíkr (Middle Swedish hviliken , huilkin , hu(l)kin , Swedish, Danish hvilken ) with the locative hwī ; Old High German hwêolîh , wiolîh (Middle High German wielich ) with the adverb hweo , weo (German wie ) how.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:37 PM
@Robusto Maybe they're like me. Read a few pieces of good writing here and there and thought that is the easiest way to be elegant and articulate.
. . . Is it normal for a laptop to try to read a disk in the disk drive where there are none? I think mine is having an existential crisis.
 
 
1 hour later…
5:50 PM
 
 
1 hour later…
7:15 PM
@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ It's lonely?
I remember when 'diskless' computers were scary, like how could they possibly ... function?
We're almost but not quite there where the feeling is 'what's external storage for'?
And then in about ... 10 years? it'll be 'I don't get the whole internal/external storage thing. It's all just there' (until you forget to pay your 'matrix/skynet' bill.
 
7:44 PM
Hi. there is a sentence that I don't get in this :
It sounds like a lot, but it"s really not that hard if you keep that tumbler filled, sip regularly, and take it wherever you go. Oh, "and you will go more often", for sure.
what does "and you will go more often" mean?
 
@parvin It means 'use the toilet'
 
oh I see ! thank you <3
 
No problem
Definition 11 in the dictionary Google uses.
 
 
1 hour later…
8:52 PM
@tchrist 'barnes'('bairns)' = 'children'. I realise this is incidental, but a half-translated passage may be worse than leaving it alone.
 
9:08 PM
@TimLymington I thought I fixed the spelling already?
Modern Scots uses bairns; the original barnes.
I was only using modern spelling, not trying to "translate". Mostly.
Granted that OE ybete > beaten may well count more as translating than respelling.
 
@tchrist That's pretty readable, IMO.
@CowperKettle The point is, in very many SWRs—if not most, in fact—the solution is obvious: recast the sentence in a better way. Use better writing instead of trying to find some obscure word that may or not be recognizable to ordinary human beings. What's wrong with a good adjective or adverb now and then? Broaden your horizons.
@Færd Bit late to be refuting Lenin, isn't it?
 
10:10 PM
@Robusto Or even <gasp> a clause!
 
 
1 hour later…
11:24 PM
> It's like the world's dirtiest game of Pictionary.
It's Art.
 
11:48 PM
@Cerberus Looks like someone bollixed up a jigsaw puzzle.
 
Indeed.
The author applied some filter.
 

« first day (3174 days earlier)      last day (148 days later) »