I have the following sentence which describes a person putting a finger on someone's chest and trailing it downwards:
She put a finger lightly on my chest and then ran it down south.
In this context, would it be correct to use run something down south or should it be replaced with trailed it do...
@alphabet It looks like a question on figurative expressions. Use of down is a homey intensifier, and whether one should substitute it with a more literal expression is a matter of opinion. What do you find striking about it?
An evaluation of the relative difference between "ran it down south," in which down works as a complement to "ran it," and the entirely different expression "trailed it downwards."
@Robusto The difference in syntax or in meaning? The question is: "In this context, would it be correct to use 'run something down south' or should it be replaced with 'trailed it downwards'?"
@alphabet The answer to that question revolves around the term correct. Obviously, that term has no answer that is not opinion-based. It's not a question of grammar, or spelling, or even punctuation. It's the equivalent of "Is it correct to say wool or cotton?
It seems like every other question we get has the title "Are these sentences correct?" Either that, or "Is this grammatical?"
Generic question titles make it more difficult to figure out if a question has been asked before. And usually, after you pore over the question like an archaeologist dec...
@Robusto This is a question about the usage of one particular idiomatic expression; it's not asking us to proofread a complete sentence. It's specific enough to be answerable.
@Robusto I'm not gonna be the one to search a corpus of romance novels and/or smut and come up with a list of attestations (which I think is the only way of answering this).
@Robusto Generally, if a term is widely used in a particular way, that constitutes evidence of its correctness, particularly if it's a colloquial or slang term. I don't think usage guides cover this issue.
@alphabet I disagree because "correctness" has nothing to do with this evaluation. You can't use that term without a context. It's like asking "Is this piece of wood useful?" Useful for what? For solving quadratic equations? For putting a drink on? For scratching your arse? For saluting the heavens?
The questioner has left us the job of what task will "solve" the evaluation.
@Robusto The question is: does "ran it down south" make sense with (roughly) the same meaning as "trailed it downwards"? I think we all know what "correct" means in this context; it's asking if the sentence is grammatically correct and has something like the obviously intended meaning.
@Robusto What do you think "correct" means? I'm pretty sure my definition is what most ELU questioners mean. The problem is that some people just ask "Is this sentence correct" without specifying the particular problem or concern they have.
But that isn't the case in this question, which is asking about the usage of a specific idiomatic expression.
I would join that chat to explain how both of the disputants are idiots in their own special ways, but I'm not dumb enough to get in the middle of this.
@SteveMelnikoff: That's what sovereign territory means: one cannot enter it without the permission of the controlling state. There's a fiddling distinction here between 'land' and 'territory'. The land itself is 'owned' by the host state, but the territory (an abstract notion that expresses political control rather than legal ownership) is ceded pro tem to the embassy state. It's a bit like a teenager's bedroom: the parents may own the house, but the teen owns the space, and all hell might break loose if the parents cross that boundary. — Ted Wrigleyyesterday
@CowperKettle nautical terms annoy me even more than herb names
EBritannica seems to love them, includes one in almost every Octordle
Nigerians should stop confusing our poor propagandists. For the past couple of months, Iranian media has been favoriting this or that Nigerian warlord depending on how much they bare their teeth at the evil west
> Microsoft teamed up with Virginia Tech to publish a white paper introducing their new "Algorithm of Thoughts" (AoT). The objective? To make language learning models akin to human learning.
@CowperKettle It's more useful in its present metaphorical meaning, which is "a main support" of something. E.g., "Johanna is a mainstay of our dev team."
> It is named for the English physician and anatomist Thomas Wharton (1614–1673) who first described it in his publication Adenographia, or "The Description of the Glands of the Entire Body", first published in 1656.
The 17th century was unique in terms of scientific research.
> Izaak Walton, in his Compleat Angler, expresses indebtedness to Wharton, and calls him a friend.
@CowperKettle That sounds like horseshit to me. But maybe there is substance in the paper?
A 'white paper' is not an academic paper. It is ... looks up definition ...
> A white paper is an authoritative document that provides information and expert analysis on a topic or solution to a problem. White papers are often used to promote a product, service, or methodology, or to explain how to solve an issue.
That was AI generated (not chatgpt but google's beta search AI)
But it -sounds- right to me.
But what a white paper -really- is (ie the implication of the definition) is an advertisement for a product. That's it. It -claims- to do certain things in a certain manner but there is no support -in- the document. They're just saying 'This car is great! we expect it to have good gas mileage! But we don't actually know anything'
Superficially white papers look like academic documents (ones which make a logical case or provide experimental evidence for a claim).
As of this comment I haven't looked at the 'Algorithm of thoughts' white paper yet.
Skimming the paper, maybe it's a successful new prompt engineering strategy, but...
@CowperKettle But there is nothing in there that supports 'To make language learning models akin to human learning' (from your quote). That's just horseshit.
Horseshit is subtly different from bullshit.
5
Bullshit comes in two varieties:
1) ad lib discourse tenuously connected with facts, and with limited attempts at trying to maintain internal consistency with facts.
ie not lying (telling falsehoods intentionally), and not really telling the truth, just talking for talkings sake. The lack of intention is important here. eg late night bullshit session where people are drinking or are high and are just saying things to keep a conversation going, nothing can be taken seriously or intentionally.
another eg a 'bullshit artist' someone good at talking a lot to help bypass the truth or say the truth mixed in with a lot of irrelevant things. Bullshit is mostly irrelevant things using the words of the subject but not saying yes or no. the metaphor is that shit is useless.
it's a near synonym of nonsense
2) the second sense of 'bullshit' is intentionally misleading. you're not lying, you're saying true things, but the direction and intention of what's being said is counter to the question. The criminal being interrogated will use all sorts of bullshit to mislead the investigator. 'No officer, at that time when the murder was committed I was smoking cigarettes with my friends' (who all happened to be doing so when they committed the murder.
So it is telling the inappropriate truth to mislead.
Horseshit is mostly just this latter kind of bullshit.
ChatGPT is innocuously like the first kind... string of letters that sound like English and mostly say things that are true, but also false, and doesn't care, there's no caring involved.
Politicians and advertisers and hype men do the second kind.
@CowperKettle Where did you find this quote? Link?
@Vikas Not Microsoft's fault. Blame Google, assuming you're using Chrome or a derivative. Firefox displays an emoji on Windows, although I have to admit it's less clear than the one you showed.
> A 23-year-old graduate student reported a six-year history of worsening EDS, with an elevated Epworth Sleepiness score of 13 (abnormal ≥ 11). This was associated with movements during sleep, in which his roommate observed him sitting up in bed, looking around, and returning to sleep within one minute.
But ELU has few experienced ... word smiths or linguists. Somehow just looking at the site would scare away anyone serious (except some very few people who care).
@alphabet answerers. I mean yeah the questions aren't very deep (the interesting ones asked by people who don't conform are usually DVd immediately by the usual cast)
But with SWRs in particular (but it's kinda also the case for most categories of question) any old person who has thought of a word will answer.
It's like they half read the question while nodding off in front of the screen late at night and thought 'Hm, a question about South America, let me tell them something about North America, a place where I am not from.'
@alphabet We have a small handful of historically good answerers, but that doesn't cover most of the answerers. Yes SWRs are notoriously bad, but I'm kinda saying it's the sitch for most questions.
You read a question and then all the answers and it's almost like they're intentionally trying to avoid answering the gd question.
@Mitch I'm not really sure there's a big untapped pool of potentially good answerers who've been driven away. The usual situation on online forums is that 1% of users generate 99% of decent content.
Plus the Linguistics and Writing SEs siphon off some people with that interest.
I do think that ELU is a mix of all the things that don't belong in ELL, Linguistics SE, or Writing SE.
Making it rather heterogeneous
One could argue that we should have two sites, "English Linguistics/Syntax" and "English Writing/Usage," with SWRs in the latter category. But more fragmentation rarely helps.
I have the following sentence which describes a person putting a finger on someone's chest and trailing it downwards:
She put a finger lightly on my chest and then ran it down south.
In this context, would it be correct to use run something down south or should it be replaced with trailed it do...
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…