@tchrist seriously? Someone complained? Not only is it not shocking in the first place, when you actually do manage to see the thing it is the only part of the animal that is actually red!
I hear eww (sometimes spelt as ew) fairly regularly on American sitcoms, usually uttered by a scatterbrained beautiful blonde girl when she sees or hears something disgusting. I don't recall it ever being said when I was a child living in London, in the 70s it was common to utter yuck or ugh, the...
I'm afraid this doesn't answer my question, which originally was: "Is it grammatical in certain regions of the UK to use "too" instead of "either"? — Luis2 hours ago
Then why did you add the part about "Imagine"? You should have left that out if it had no bearing on your question, or else tied up the relationship better. — Robusto2 mins ago
We forget that people who ask dumb questions about English may not necessarily express themselves all that well.
Well, I think a certain experiment has run its course long enough to present results.
I wanted to find out to what degree “naughty” words in titles attracted views.
I intentionally masked shag in an ambiguous fashion so that its sexual connotation would not be immediately apparent compared with its scatological one.
And look at the views results: the titles with the sex-related naughty word in the actual title all drew many more views than it has.
@KitFox This is interesting.
This suggests, to me at least, that the title can prove a view-attractor if it contains a “wicked” word in a way that if it is masked off, it does not.
Hm, I seem to have discovered an unrevealed UI change. Checking through meta now.
> 2014-09-08: "Too minor" was removed of the suggested edits reject reasons list. 2014-09-05: Suggested edit review offers a new button “Reject and Edit”.
Well, that wasn’t what I was looking for, but interesting nevertheless.
The insurance company said they only covered towing to nearest workshop, 200 km away. We managed to negotiate so the towing guy came with a spare tire so we could continue.
But this weekend we had a proper extra tire, it was even filled with air :)
So one of our pineapple QA people writes: "the cercle is supose to be spiner but isno't spining." How do I even respond to that? "Hey, this isn't YouTube, it's a place of business"?
Or maybe: "He this isno't youtub its plaice of bisnas"?
A (1). What’s wrong? A (2). What’s the matter?
B. The internet doesn’t work.
In A (1), ‘what’ is beyond doubt a subject. But in A (2), Which is the subject: ‘what’ or ‘the matter’? Can it be clearly designated? Or ambivalent?
@MattЭллен Good question. In a sentence with noun - copula - noun, we normally say the first word counts as the subject, even though there could be inversion and you can't really tell. However, with what, I would be inclined to say the subject is a car, because the verb becomes plural if you change it to cars: what are cars?, not what is cars? (unless the asker doesn't know cars is a plural word).
@MattЭллен It is when a word takes on features of a (nearby) word even though, syntactically/functionally, it shouldn't. That happens sometimes in language.
We "learned" the rudiments of Old English over the course of a single semester, and then were plunged directly into translating Beowulf in the second. I'm surprised I lived through that.
Learning other languages is fun for me. I seem to do it with a fair degree of ease. If only I could keep them active in my life so I don't lose the proficiency, all would be well.
I was pretty fluent in German after only six months there. It helped that I'd had high-school and college-level German instruction, but the rapid assimilation of full immersion is what I credit for my spike in competence.
But knackered only works in BrE. In AmE we'd probably say used up or spent, but more likely outdated or obsolete. Still more likely: "I junked my shitty old phone and got a new one." — Robusto1 min ago
@MattЭллен Normally, what is the interrogative pronoun, the one which corresponds to the demonstrative pronoun that. Abnormally, What is the name of the second-base player in a baseball game. What was originally used only as a neuter impersonal singular, but was extended to plural use following the revelation that the shortstop didn’t give a damn.
With sufficient rep they can see the number of votes for this or that close reason. But as Mitch says, you have to at least initiate the close-vote process (which doesn't mean you have to vote to close yourself).