« first day (4096 days earlier)      last day (150 days later) » 

4:06 AM
@Robusto There's something about venting idly against a vague threat out there that no one knows to describe exactly. Especially if, for 40 years, this process is repeated at every small talk, many random moments throughout the day.
After a while, the brain is convinced inquisitiveness is disbelief. The evidence is damning. I mean, every small talk?!
 
4:21 AM
@CowperKettle That helps!
 
 
4 hours later…
8:26 AM
@M.A.R. Do you mean to say that many people don't believe in God in Iran now thanks to the Government?
 
 
2 hours later…
9:58 AM
@CowperKettle oh that's mostly the same, more or less. Most Iranians were never really serious religious practitioners. In the past decade, people's attitude towards a dysfunctional government has shifted from "it's ours and our mess to clean up" to "the system is corrupt and irredeemable". The revolution was considered a 'people's' revolution, and upheaval was never considered before. Right now, the government is shunned by a lot of people, regardless of their political alignment.
Of course there's still the braindead crowd that gobbles up propaganda like candy, and they're still significant.
The sort of right-winger that maintains some level of integrity always believed in sacrificing the individual for the collective, as long as the governors kept their side of the bargain. And before the internet and satellite dishes I imagine it must really have been a blackhole, embezzlement and corruption being discreet. In the past decade, thanks to social media, they really couldn't contain the news. The scandals ripped through conviction and self-sacrifice.
Though of course, the regime is still considered pretty stable, since the sort of right-winger sheep that cheer every moron with a speech are still innocuously grazing with lowered heads. That and the fact that people are venting, and not quite at the Bastille rioting stage of disillusionment
Case in point.
 
10:19 AM
Regarding religion, I might be wrong, but I actually think that, as I said, most Iranians were never that hardcore about worship. It was mostly opium for the people where it mattered. It was some degree of relief to imagine the oppressing Khan in hell. Just that, at least for the previous generation, it was much more socially desirable than this generation, to declare fervency in worship.
I dunno enough about other major religions to comment, but Islamic scripture always makes it look like the average Muslim is an alien with very odd habits, the spiritual guru. The monk that lives on top of the mountain. The average Muslim. So It think it's very easy, and profitable, to exaggerate how far removed from reality the average Muslim can be. And if we take that to be the standard for zealotry, most Iranians would never meet the bar.
So is it true that most of the Iranians still do bend and bow in the most ritualistic fashion, reciting words they don't have much feeling towards, passed down by the previous generation? Yes, absolutely. Do they tend to believe in pretty outdated, sometimes outrageous things? Yes, because like every other third world country with a distant language from English, they are and feel isolated. Do I think most Iranians are zealots, religious 'extremists', etc.? No, not at all.
 
 
2 hours later…
12:11 PM
@M.A.R. Thanks for an exhaustive answer.
I wonder whether there are many people who are not sure that God actually exists.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:18 PM
> the Hanoverian king George I of Great Britain (reigned 1714–1727), who had no command of spoken English, communicated in Latin with his Prime Minister Robert Walpole,[9] who knew neither German nor French
 
 
2 hours later…
3:23 PM
@M.A.R. Interesting. A very nuanced explanation.
 
4:10 PM
425 million years ago, a very careless fish caught a virus. The fish was not following the antiviral measures. Not wearing a mask at all. The virus was a retrovirus, and it invaded the DNA of the poor fish, and turned into a retrotransposon. This retrotransposon affected the expression of other genes and a curious substance called myelin started forming around neuronal axons in the brains of the fish's progeny.
As a result of this, brains got bigger and bigger, and one day a fish went for a walk and never returned to the ocean.
And finally, 425 million years later, a group of descendants of that fish published a paper on arxive, describing their theory of the origins of myelin. It happened on 24 January 2022. biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477350v1.full.pdf
 
5:10 PM
@Mitch Hey thanks for humouring me with my question concerning because reasons. I really thought it was the other way around i.e. "because" alone to mean I have reasons I'm not telling, whereas I was reading "because reasons" as I have reasons which are too complicated so I don't want to explain.
 
@Ti-culTi-caille uh...
 
It wasn't you?
 
They're really not that different and both can be used in either situation.
I jsut emphasized what I thought were very subtle differences.
 
So where does because NOUN fit into this?
 
The biggest difference isn't in meaning but really in newmess and strangeness. 'because' is much older.
 
5:15 PM
Oh, ok. Maybe just the way I'm explaining what you said.
 
"Why can't we travel faster than light?"
"Because science."
 
@Ti-culTi-caille They are barely distinguishable.
 
Ok, do you think "because reasons are" is grammatical?
 
If that is the full sentence then no.
But maybe in a particular context with extra words, then maybe?
 
@Mitch That sentence is possible in some circumstances.
 
5:17 PM
what context?
 
If the question hinges on the copula are.
 
I'm having trouble giving it any stress pattern that would make it make sense
 
Gimme a minute.
 
clock started...
 
I ask because you said the fact it's weird makes it attractive maybe, so I thought maybe the person was trying to make an inversion, like old language...
 
5:18 PM
Now
@Ti-culTi-caille An inversion of what?
 
"Why can't we conquer Poland if nothing is standing in our way?"
"Because reasons are."
 
Sorry there, I lack the lexicon. Because there are reasons vs. because reasons are.
The verb at the end.
 
Oh ok with the implied elision of "...standing in our way"
@Ti-culTi-caille You also dropped the 'there'
 
Indeed, it's a stretch.
 
@Mitch Yes. The whole construction "because reasons" depends on elision of some sort.
 
5:21 PM
"because reasons there are" is strange (sounds like Yoda) and might work poetically, but "because reasons are" is hard to make sound natural.
Unless you really stress 'reasons' (as @Robusto mentioned) so that it is a shortening of 'Because reasons are standing in our way"
 
Adding stress to are makes it sound like I'm saying tzar.
 
@Robusto Well intellectual elision (eliminating speaking of all the details), but grammatically I think it just stands on its own.
 
@Ti-culTi-caille I can't hear you, but that is not a situation that would obtain among native speakers.
 
nothing grammatically elided
 
@Robusto I hear you.
 
5:23 PM
@Mitch The whole thing grammatically erases the predicate, so yeah, it's a grammatical elision.
 
@Ti-culTi-caille In a native English accent the 's' goes more with the 'because' (whereas I suspect in French the 's', even though lexically part of 'because', gets pronounced as the start of the following syllable).
 
"Because reasons" is short for "Because there are reasons."
 
@Robusto For 'Because science' I don't feel anything elided... the 'because' is acting like a preposition and 'science' or 'reasons' is the full object of the prepositional phrase.
@Robusto Oh... I don't hear it that way at all.
 
@Mitch It all goes back to the "because noun" issue I brought up earlier.
 
2 days ago, by Mitch
That said, there's a book with it in the title: Because Internet
 
5:27 PM
The noun in question is something I don't have a name for, maybe a folded predicate?
 
Them things that pack a wallop.
 
Implied predicate?
 
Language is so intricate, sometimes I wonder how come we understand each other beyond basic yes/no stuff. We don't all take the same path to reach that garden.
 
The point is, "because noun" is missing a component. The noun can stand on its own, I think, but coupled with because I feel it must be a complete statement with at least subject and predicate.
@Ti-culTi-caille Our language capability is just that good.
It's what separates us from other animals.
As John McWhorter notes, an animal may be able to tell you where there is a bit of roadkill, but it can't tell you what it felt about that yesterday.
3
 
5:55 PM
@Robusto Language is a topic I like a lot, but sadly I wasn't trained in linguistics. Yet it was the only topic which seemingly fit my aptitudes when I was in high school, according to some 3 letters thingy program. I didn't even know what that was about back then.
Cheers all.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:20 PM
0
Q: How to analyze the trope "because NOUN" grammatically

RobustoIn recent years it has become something of a trope to respond to a question with the stark reply "because noun. For example, Q. Why can't we burn fossil fuels indefinitely? A. Because science. [Short for something like "because science has shown this leads to catastrophic climate change.] or Q...

@Mitch ^
 
7:50 PM
@Robusto nice.
My expectation, based on past experience, is that we won't be satisfied with any answer, that people will just do google searches (not that a google search won't necessarily be satisfying, but that an answer here made of a google search won't be.
Also, I expect a close vote from EA because off-topic.
You know why it's off-topic?
Me neither.
@Robusto I find that animals try to communicate with you but are extremely frustrated because they don't have the words. They barely know how to point at things.
They look at the thing then look back at you. Then they do it again. "Look at this! Don't you get it? It's a thing!". It could be a dead edible thing or where some body pooped or peed a week ago.
 
8:16 PM
As an English question, could you please tell me which one is correct?
> - Share the post with who you think can suit this position well.
> - Share the post with whom you think can suit this position well.
 
 
1 hour later…
9:20 PM
@Mitch 2 votes to close now, as dupe.
 
@Robusto I was just looking at them.
the dupes
 
@Mitch I don't think the dupes are really equivalent. The one with the answer about the preposition could have been a reply to this one, though.
 
10
Q: What part-of-speech will the new "because" be? because happy / sad / bored; because science /

Michael Owen SartinThe American Dialect Society has voted because as the Word of the Year owing to its increased use in phrases such as "because happy," "because sad," and "because bored." Since it takes an object, it might be thought of as a preposition, but (as in the third example) it sometimes takes a partici...

 
@Mitch Yeah, still nothing like a satisfactory answer. Lawler commented about it in an interesting way, as usual.
 
His answers are unsatisfying for a reason in the opposite direction...he posts abbreviated ideas that hint at an answer in a comment.
But I think it will be difficult to justify not closing as a dupe because the one I just linked says part of speech (it doesn't really address the full grammar difference between 'because noun' and 'because of 'noun'. Unless you update and clarify.
 
9:33 PM
@Mitch Good point.
@Mitch Updated.
 
10:30 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in link text in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (82): Does "Bitcoin" need to be capitalized?‭ by Fhfh Djdjdj‭ on english.SE
 

« first day (4096 days earlier)      last day (150 days later) »