English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

user116848

00:00

Resigning someone's account here....What does it mean here?

tchrist

And we certainly cannot provide links to dictionaries and treasure books in our GR closings, or we completely defeat the purpose. If we did that, we’d be giving the scrounging seal the fish they were demanding of us after all instead of sending them off to do the real background work they should have done before they got here.

medica

@Arrowfar you can't really do that; it was a joke.

Alraxite

@Arrowfar I'm into divination

user116848

How stupid of me

Alraxite

@Arrowfar Deleting your account.

user116848

00:01

Yeah do that :D

user116848

I am divine too then :p

medica

@tchrist How ... I cannot see a position that isn't a compromise. What difference is it if we say: look it up, vs. we say: Look it up here. Either way, we're not doing the work.

@Arrowfar no, not stupid. Just new. You can delete your own account, but not someone else's.

user116848

@Alraxite So it was too a joke on your part?

tchrist

@medica We can say that it is in the dictionary or thesaurus or any basic English grammar book, which is what we do do.

user116848

:)

tchrist

00:03

@Arrowfar It was on mine, yes.

medica

@tchrist but we don't do that!!!

tchrist

@medica What do you mean? I thought we did.

medica

@tchrist Very few of us do.

it gets tiresome.

tchrist

It’s in the close reason.

We don’t have to supply an extra comment.

medica

I ask, what did the dictionary state? and then someone answers it anyway.

@tchrist Like the O question. I tried to find a duplicate. I ended up just answering the damn thing because it was easier.

user116848

00:06

Can I ask a question?

phenry

is that what this is about?? good grief.

medica

@tchrist people don't read the close reason, they just bitch.

tchrist

> This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.

phenry

what's the general reference cite for interpreting "[interjection], to [verb]"?

medica

@phenry there's not, but "O/OH" is everywhere.

tchrist

00:07

@phenry You don’t need it.

medica

@phenry So I answered it. Now we have a dupe.

tchrist

Where is the one for the past tense?

Where is the one for the first-person singular to be?

medica

the past tense of O?

tchrist

Where is the one for a million possible permuations?

You do not need it.

medica

There is no past tense of O

tchrist

00:08

That was not what I meant, damn it.

user116848

@tchrist How can you type 'bold' here on chat?

tchrist

14 mins ago, by tchrist

O take me back again!
O would I were there!
O that I might see him!
O for another glimpse of it!
O the pity of it!
O dear me!
O dear!
O me!

I gots lots more where those comes froms too.

user116848

Can I ask something?

phenry

@tchrist - I don't need it. Clearly some people do. "To" at the start of a clause indicating a desire is poetic and is rarely found in more prosaic passages.

medica

@tchrist I saw this......

But it's answered now.

@Arrowfar sure

phenry

00:10

I looked up "to" in the dictionary and didn't see that sense listed for it.

Cerberus

@medica There is a subtle difference depending on what follows.

tchrist

It’s an interjection.

phenry

"to" is an interjection?

tchrist

@phenry Now you’re being intentionally obstreperous.

medica

@Cerberus No, I disagree. It's always an interjection meaning emotion.

phenry

00:11

Well, to!!

tchrist

Come back when you have something non-sarcastic to say.

Cerberus

@medica But a specific emotion if followed by an infinitive.

medica

et tu

user116848

@medica I have seen some discussions on the topic of "to plus gerund" but still tend to use "to plus infinite" always. Any tips?

phenry

@tchrist - What is the source of your belief that the word "oh," specifically and in isolation, was what the questioner was confused about?

tchrist

00:12

> oh /əʊ/, int. (sb.)

Etymology: Another spelling of O int., prob. intended to express a longer or stronger sound.

An exclamation expressing emotion of various kinds; formerly often used in all positions in which O is now more usual; now chiefly used when the exclamation is detached from what follows, and esp. as a cry of pain or terror, or in expression of shame, derisive astonishment, or disapprobation, in which case it is often repeated as oh! oh!

A. 1548 Hall Chron., Edw. IV 231 b, ― Oh Lorde, Oh sainct George,··have you thus doen in deede?

medica

@Arrowfar to + gerund sounds odd; can you give me an example?

tchrist

Done.

phenry

@tchrist - yes, yes, we know you're on top of the whole "oh" thing. congratulations.

What is the source of your belief that the word "oh," specifically and in isolation, was what the questioner was confused about?

tchrist

Anybody who looks up to instead of oh needs to have their IQ boosted to room temperature.

phenry

that doesn't even make sense.

medica

00:13

@phenry (seriously?)

Cerberus

@phenry I warn you, this will go nowhere, not when he's in this mood. It's like kicking a wall.

medica

@phenry OK, I see if I wasn't a native speaker, I might not understand that.

tchrist

@phenry The "Oh to have…" expression

phenry

@medica - My point is that "Oh to have" are three words that don't appear together very often.

user116848

Yeah "I look forward to meeting your parents tonight!

He confessed to killing his next-door neighbour.

She adjusted to living on her own.

tchrist

00:14

Q

E

D

Cerberus

@medica I am not used to answering questions like that.

phenry

@medica - THIS, exactly.

tchrist

Insert infix interjections just where they go.

user116848

@medica How to make these structures?

medica

@Arrowfar ah...good examples

Cerberus

00:15

Native speaker or no, this cannot be easily looked up in a work of general reference, in my verrry humble opinion.

phenry

It's not something that is going to be resolved by just looking up "oh" in isolation, because then you've got to figure out "[interjection] to have...".

user116848

@medica So I always use "to plus infinitive" instead

tchrist

You are being disingenuous.

@phenry Yes. it will.

Oh is an interjection.

It is followed by all kinds of things.

medica

@Arrowfar No, the examples as given are better. But I can't explain at this moment. I will later or tommorrow, though, promise.

tchrist

AND IT DOES NOT CHANGE ONE WHIT

Oh for a thousand tongues to sing my great redeemer’s praise!

user116848

00:16

@medica So tomorrow here?

medica

yes. :)

tchrist

Oh give me a home, where the buffalo roam!

phenry

then my question is the same: please find me a general reference cite that helps interpret the word "to" in this context.

user116848

okay:)

tchrist

Those are identical to the infinitive case. Nothing changes. We do not elaborate all possible complements.

medica

00:18

@tchrist I thought it was worth answering!

phenry

"Oh give me a home..." is imperative. Is "Oh to have..." imperative?

Robusto

If only there was a system for indexing the dumb questions on this site. We could get to a canonical answer a lot quicker.

tchrist

@phenry Ok buster, you’re going on ignore, because you are a dishonest interlocutor.

And I loathe liars.

medica

@Robusto exactly! sorry to ping

user116848

Good bye guys

phenry

00:19

You're the only one who doesn't get this, @tchrist. @Cerberus sees the issue. @medica sees the issue.

Robusto

►

tchrist

Snuttergipes.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar If a phrase that has a compulsory to can be followed by a noun, you would normally use to + gerund if you want to use it with a verb. If not, don't use to with a gerund.

Robusto

13

Q: How does one know when to use a gerund or an infinitive?

As a native speaker of English, the gerund version of this sentence sounds better: infinitive: When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedented tool to produce extremely concise code. gerund: When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedent...

Maybe?

Cerberus

> I look forward to your e-mail.
> I look forward to hearing from you.

user116848

00:21

@Cerberus okay and...

Cerberus

> I like butter.
> I like screaming.
> I like to scream.

Robusto

@Cerberus I just look forward to you, you three-headed doggy.

Cerberus

Aww.

tchrist

Oh sleep. Oh that I might sleep. Oh to sleep. Oh to have actually engaged with honest interlocutors.

Cerberus

@tchrist O, cruel!

Robusto

00:22

> Sleep, that knits up the ravel'd sleave of care.

tchrist

Oh for sleep, perchance for dream.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar You understand the pattern?

Robusto

Lotsa dreamin' goin' on in Shakespeare. It's almost Midsummer's night, btw.

tchrist

Oh death, where is thy sting?

Cerberus

@tchrist Oh, Judas, why hast thou betrayed me?

Robusto

00:23

@tchrist And if you were Bilbo, we might ask, "Oh Sting, where is thy death?"

tchrist

Oh that this cup might pass from me!

phenry

@tchrist - on what point do you doubt my honesty?

tchrist

Oh for this cup to pass from me!

Cerberus

The question is, does oh + infinitive always imply that one is longing for the verb to be true?

user116848

@Cerberus If a phrase that has a compulsory to can be followed by a noun, you would normally use to + gerund if you want to use it with a verb. If not, don't use to with a gerund. Can you make it simple for me?

tchrist

00:23

Oh to pass from me this cup!

Robusto

@phenry He can't hear you.

phenry

@Robusto - why?

Robusto

5 mins ago, by tchrist

@phenry Ok buster, you’re going on ignore, because you are a dishonest interlocutor.

Because ^

tchrist

Duh.

phenry

oh for pete's sake.

that's just childish.

Robusto

00:25

Normally I would say pete's got nothing to do with it, but in this case it might.

medica

@phenry good one

"OH, for pete's sake"

Cerberus

@Arrowfar OK. Let's take a verb or phrase, look forward. Let's test it. Can it be followed by to + a noun? Yes: "I look forward to your reply". Reply is a noun. That means you have to use to + -ing if you want to use it with a verb instead of a noun: I look forward to hearing from you. If the answer was not yes but no, then you cannot use it with to + -ing.

phenry

ah ha. totally didn't mean to do that.

tchrist

►

phenry

@Cerberus - interesting question. I can't think of any counterexamples.

But, as I've said repeatedly, this isn't about "oh" at all.

user116848

00:27

@Cerberus okay...

phenry

It's about the implicit "[I desire]" before the "to".

medica

@phenry In the end, though, it really is.

@phenry No. It can be horror!

phenry

@medica - no, because "To sleep, perchance to dream" is structurally the same, and it's missing "oh".

Cerberus

> Let's take like. Can it be used with to + noun? No: when I want to use it with a noun, I cannot use to. I can say "I like tea", but not "I like to tea". That mean I cannot use *like with to + -ing.

medica

"O, the horror, the horror!"

Robusto

00:28

Wow, that Nebraska tornado wasted a town about 20 miles away from where my niece lives.

Cerberus

@phenry Oh, to see you suffer like that!

medica

@phenry I'm not sure that's true.

Cerberus

I would probably rather say, "oh, seeing you suffer like that".

phenry

@Cerberus - heh... around here, I'd read that as "I desire" too.

Cerberus

But perhaps the infinitive is also possible with a negative connotation?

medica

00:28

@phenry lol

phenry

but that's a good counterexample.

Cerberus

@phenry doubts, ponders

user116848

@Cerberus Thanks ...

Robusto

@Cerberus I look forward to doubting, to pondering.

Cerberus

> ? Oh, to see you again after so many years, my dear! You don't seem to have aged a day!

@Robusto Or to doubt?

Robusto

00:30

To err is human, to forgive divine.

phenry

My point is that "oh" is fairly common as an interjection at the beginning of an utterance, but "[I desire] to" can appear independently.

medica

@phenry perhaps she should have been migrated to ELL as soon as a mod saw the question

Cerberus

@Arrowfar Did you understand it?

@phenry I tend to agree, but I'm not entirely sure.

tchrist

Optatives.

phenry

@medica - Ironically, I was the first person to vote to close that question, although I voted for Unclear.

Robusto

00:31

@Cerberus Doubtless.

Cerberus

Maybe it is context, after all, that provides the desirable connotation?

@tchrist Greek ones or Latin ones?

tchrist

@Cerberus The corresponding English constructions.

medica

@phenry and ironically. I looked for a dupe, found none and answered it.

Cerberus

@Robusto Indubitably.

@tchrist Oh, those!

user116848

@Cerberus Yeah still thinking it :) Can you explain in the same way with one more example

Cerberus

00:32

@Arrowfar Sure! Let's do it together.

phenry

@Cerberus - Yes.

Cerberus

Let me think of an example...

@phenry If yes, then...

phenry

"To be or not to be" - simple infinitive, no desire

"To die, to sleep no more" - implicit "I desire"

Robusto

One optato, two optato, three optato, four.

user116848

@Cerberus He objects to spending so much money on a T.V.

phenry

00:33

In both cases, the word "to" opens the sentence, but it means different things.

user116848

@Cerberus Why here??

tchrist

If only it were so. Oh that it were so. Oh to be so.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar Right, that is a good one. Can you think of a valid sentence where you have he objects to [noun]?

There can be articles or adjectives in front of the noun.

@phenry Ah, but I think only the second one is still current.

@Arrowfar Well, we're here anyway?

tchrist

♫ Oh to be a millionaire / Without a worry or a care / Oh to be a millionaire / But I’m bringing up the rear instead! ♫

Cerberus

@tchrist Oh, to leave Paris in such a hurry!

user116848

00:36

@Cerberus You tell me I can't think of any

phenry

@Cerberus - well, in the sense that we rarely formulate decisions using infinitives anymore, sure.

medica

@phenry I disagree with you there. There is no difference between to be and to die except one is to live, one is to die

Cerberus

@Arrowfar What kinds of things do people normally object to?

Can people object to things?

Robusto

►

tchrist

@Cerberus Oh that you should leave Paris that way!

Cerberus

00:37

@tchrist Should is another ambiguous one...

user116848

@Cerberus overspending, laziness etc

phenry

@medica - true, they're both infinitives. But there's an implicit "[I want]" before "to die, to sleep no more"

but not before "To be".

tchrist

@Cerberus Oh that it were over!

Robusto

@Cerberus We'll always have Paris.

Cerberus

Correct! But overspending is a gerund: we want a noun. So let's use laziness. Can you make a sentence with he objects to...laziness?

tchrist

00:37

Oh to be over and done!

medica

@phenry no more than to to before to be or not to be

user116848

@Cerberus Things----cigarettes, drugs etc

tchrist

Oh shucks!

Robusto

@Cerberus Why not?

Cerberus

@Robusto No thanks to Hitler.

Robusto

00:38

I object to everything. Everything is a noun.

Cerberus

@Robusto Because we need a noun for the test. If we cannot intuit whether or not a gerund is possible.

Robusto

@Cerberus This looks like the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

phenry

@medica - "[I want] to be or not to be"? I don't read it like that.

Cerberus

If we cannot intuit whether or not a gerund is possible.

user116848

@Cerberus So c'mon

Robusto

00:39

@Cerberus Everything is a noun.

medica

@phenry Do I want to be or don't I?

phenry

that is the question.

Robusto

I object to Bill, I object to socks, I object to nouns in general.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar What? Can you make a sentence with he objects to...laziness? That is the test. You need to do that.

phenry

@medica - hmm... I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree.

medica

00:40

fair enough.

Cerberus

@Robusto Ding! But why don't we let the other kids get in some answers first?

phenry

but I have to think about it some more.

medica

i 've got to go. bbl. Bye all.

user116848

@Cerberus Well "he objects to laziness" where do I put to-ing here

tchrist

♫ Oh! oh! oh! / totus floreo, / iam amore virginali / totus ardeo, / novus, novus, novus amor / est, quo pereo. ♫

Robusto

00:41

@Cerberus Oh. I thought you seriously didn't know. Sorry.

phenry

me too, unfortunately. now this Hamlet thing will be bothering me.

see y'all later

Cerberus

@Arrowfar The test is: "was that possible?". You have just done it: does he objects to laziness sound right to you? If so, then the answer is "yes", and the verb object has passed the test. That means you can use it with to + -ing.

Mahnax

Good evening, again.

Cerberus

> I object to your selling the house.

@Robusto Haha, as usual, you underestimate me...

@phenry G'bye!

Robusto

@Cerberus No, I thought you were lost in one of your grammarly woolgathering sessions.

user116848

00:43

@Cerberus So what would be "to ing" sentence here. Can you tell me

Cerberus

@Mahnax Hi.

@Robusto Is teaching woolgathering?

Robusto

@Cerberus If it looks like a duck . . .

Cerberus

Quack.

Robusto

If it looks like a dog but quacks like a duck . . .

tchrist

♫ Oh goodbye my Coney Island baby ♫

Robusto

00:49

@tchrist: Has your answer to my meta question bloomed since migration?

tchrist

@Robusto No, they hate it.

Ah to see it as it was in its glory!

’Twould be a fine thing.

Robusto

@tchrist I hate MSO. The second you ask for something a little different, the Puritans take it as criticism of their god and round on you.

tchrist

In the sand I draw a line.

user116848

@Cerberus Above you said "reply" is a noun. How so?

tchrist

Let a river run through it.

Call that stream the River Rubicon.

Cerberus

00:54

@Arrowfar Because you can put an article (a/an/the) in front of a it: a reply, the reply.

user116848

@Cerberus But In dictionary it is a verb

tchrist

For it runs red with the blood of innocents.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar Reply can be both a verb and a noun, that is true.

tchrist

Anything can be anything.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar So for the test it is probably wise to pick a noun that normally cannot also be a verb.

tchrist

00:55

And often enough is.

Cerberus

We have to keep things as simple as possible here.

user116848

@Cerberus Yes... That is for sure

Robusto

@Cerberus Do you know any? I realize this is a big ask, but . . .

tchrist

Short.

Cerberus

@Robusto Wine.

Stop wining.

Robusto

00:56

@Cerberus Then I won't wine and dine you.

tchrist

Can a short short short you short?

Cerberus

I was just typing that.

But that is idiom.

tchrist

@Robusto Always straight to the point.

Robusto

@Cerberus books.google.com/ngrams/…

Cerberus

If Arrowfar can only use it as a noun, that's good enough, because it is his intuition that has to be trusted.

@Robusto What?

Robusto

00:57

Wine used as a verb. QED

tchrist

> wine /waɪn/, v.

Etymology: f. wine sb.1

† 1. trans. (nonce-uses.) a. with out, to spend in drinking wine.

C. 1624 [see wench v.].

b. To furnish (a cellar) with wine.

C. 1645 Howell Lett. ii. liv. (1890) 456 ― Tho’ it be interdicted to wine the King’s Cellar with it, in respect of the corrosiveness it carries with it.

2. intr. To take wine, formerly esp. at an undergraduates’ wine-party. Freq. in collocation with dine: cf. sense 3. colloq.

1829 C. Wordsworth Ann. (1891) 70 ― Dined with Twisleton at Trin.: wined with Payne at Bal.

Cerberus

You're not helping.

tchrist

Help is a good one.

Robusto

@Cerberus They also serve who only sit and wine.

tchrist

It gets short shrift as a modifier.

Can’t get good help these days, cause good help don’t help good.

Robusto

00:58

Seriously, what noun can't be verbed?

tchrist

Or what verb cannot be made to noun?

Robusto

Any phrase can be verbed as well.

Cerberus

@Arrowfar So perhaps it is a good idea to make the test as follows: object to [adjective or article] [noun]. This is safer, because you can only use adjectives and articles before a noun.

tchrist

To noun is a verb, and to verb a noun.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…