« first day (2411 days earlier)      last day (2806 days later) » 

01:15
Been watching youtubes of Farsi learners from different nationalities. Many of them are great. Blows my mind. And yet absolutely none of them comes close to idiomatic articulacy.
And that's what I expect of myself (as an English etc learner). Silly, innit.
Language is a weird thing.
@tchrist: (Regarding the Costa Rican dialect): Las oclusivas sordas suelen cambiar de bilabial a velar: aceptar > "acectar" o concepto > "concecto". I find this rather annoying.
Understandably. :)
Spaniards normally drop the hard one, or sometimes make it a fricative.
"Hard" as in "hard to say".
So the first one.
Yeah. I'm sure there are many examples of us doing the same sort of thing in English. But geez ...
The people who drop the hard one may aspirate the vowel a little, so going from mate to met in the vowel quality. Portuguese drops the hard one and turns the vowel into an ei diphthong.
aceitar
Interesting.
01:24
Spaniards often say (I'm approximating) acehtar there, so aspirating the whilom p the way Cubans and Andulusians do with the s's in tú ¿cómo ehtah?
Careful speech includes it.
I've heard the aspiration a lot. Sometimes it's predictable, sometimes not.
Good.
You'll get the same thing in words like actor for the same reason.
Or correcto.
Hmm.
Because /kt/ is just way too hard to say in a system that strongly favors open syllables.
Ah, so that's the reason.
01:26
Yes.
They simply do not like stops in the coda.
Brazilians have talked the Portuguese into spelling such words without the stop "unless they themselves actually still say them". Sigh.
So you have dueling spelling standards based on pronunciation.
Think about Italian.
The -dad words from Spanish have no final d in Italian, but are still stressed at the end.
My head spins.
oscuridad > oscurità
I hear them dropping the final d in Spanish a lot.
In Spain that final "d" is usually a fricative in the North, and often dropped like in Italian in the South.
It's a perilous thing to start spelling things based on one dialect's pronunciation, since now you're out of alignment with all the others. Sigh. I know no good solution when you have a global language.
Portuguese spells those words -dade but says them like Spaniards do (the "e" is silent). The Brazilians says them as "-daji"
01:47
@tchrist What do you propose to be the alternative?
People sure hate English, eh?
It won't stop people from using it, just learning it.
Portuguese is having a vowel-shift now. But only in Portugal.
English doesn't exactly have globalized spelling either. Terminations often vary between U.K. and U.S. English.
That's nothing.
And not the point.
It's the mismatch between spelling and pronunciation.
The word the Portuguese pronounce the way we do our word light, the Brazilians pronounce as though it were some English laychee.
So, how should you spell that?
That's the word for milk, by the way.
I am not sure, and I am not an orthographer myself. My best guess at a compromise would be licht, but that's biased more towards the Portuguese pronunciation.
Or maybe laicht...
/ˈlɐjt/ in Portugal, /ˈlejtʃi/ in Brazil.
That /j/ is part of the diphthong.
It's spelled leite in Portuguese, no matter how it's said. Same word as leche in Spanish and lait in French and latte in Italian.
/ˈlej.t̪ɪ/ in Galician and some other northern Portuguese dialects.
Where that's a dental t.
The mapping of spelling to sounds is no longer simple.
And you cannot know how to spell a word you only hear. These are still uncommon in Portuguese, unlike in French where that's nearly always true.
This is all related to lactation and such.
lactem in the accusative.
Unfortunately I don't know the fine-grained histories of the spelling of languages beyond English and the Western Romance set, so I don't know for sure if these folks wanting a one-to-one mapping between phonemes and graphemes are from languages but recently put down in writing. There are reasons for and against Pinyin.
The "for" arguments are stronger, but the "against" positions are not wholly without merit.
The English phoneme set is reasonably consistent worldwide, but what learners fail to understand is that how those phonemes are realized phonetically varies considerably from one side of the world to the other. They also don't understand the effects of fast-speech rules on our phonology because of our syllable-timing.
02:25
@tchrist I do not know as much as you on the subject, or most others for that matter, but I would honestly be surprised if this was ever achieved in any language for any significant amount of time. Prof. Samuel Johnson was lamenting how the discrepancies between reading and writing never confirmed as far back as 1749 in his Plan for an English Dictionary.
He came as close to anybody to at least settling the orthography until Dr. Webster tried to correct the orthography, and as successful as that was it was Johnson's words that really rung true: It is not easy to persuade men to agree in speaking or writing.
There's no "correcting" the orthography possible anymore in English.
When English was first written down, it was exactly correct.
We call that language Old English. It is foreign to us.
It used a modified Latin alphabet, but was still a one-to-one mapping of phonemes and graphemes.
@tchrist You call that language Old English. I call it Saxon. XP
Then the Danes invaded the Saxon lands, and then the French overran them as well and stayed. And so Middle English happened, and we still each tried to write something with some bearing on how it was said. But there was no consistency.
And there we stand.
You'd have to start all over, throw absolutely everything out and begin anew, as was done with Old English.
But we now have a billion speakers. Whose speech do you choose?
02:51
@tchrist Hmm, there's a great deal I'd like to say on the subject of Webster's own attempt at Spelling reform because I strongly believe that his effort is the most successful one to date, but not in the here and now. I'm hoping to eventually acquire some facsimile books for an answer I'd like to write. Namely the blue backed speller and Mott Media's McGuffey readers. I also need to read some of his texts more than I have, and locate a source from the biography Harlow Giles Unger wrote.
> The Constitution provides that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any cla
Oh look!
The British are writing about our Constitution again. Isn't that quaint?
SCOTUS, Ex parte Garland.
honor, offence, counsellor.
Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-Six.
Good thing Microsoft Word wasn't around back then.
In what sense of the word do you mean British? S.C.O.T.U.S. is clearly American, albeit yankees.
Counsellor, what offence do you mean?
I suppose what you mean to highlight offences though.
And counsellors.
They have honor and behavior but offence and counsellor. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
03:00
@tchrist You see, that's just one isolated instance though, and I never said Dr. Webster's reform was wholly without resistance, or entirely successful. I just said it was the most successful to date.
Even Webster's own assistant Worcester by plagiarizing at least some of his work, and insisting on maintaining the traditional British orthography in his own dictionary.
> This is not only true in reference to the first grant of license of practise law, but the continuance of the right is made, by these laws, to depend upon the continued possession of those qualities.
If Webster's own spelling reform was fully successful, we might actually spell island without that odd little s, but neither he, nor any of the other reformers that followed him have succeeded in managing that...
"had been"?
@tchrist Where did I write that?
You wrote "if...was" just now.
I was suggesting that "had been" makes more sense.
03:12
@tchrist Do you mean I was writing about Johnson?
> If Webster's own spelling reform was fully successful, we might actually spell island
I would have written had been there for your was.
Hmm, if I had an opinion on the matter of why I did it, I'd share it with you, but I don't know.
Sometimes I do try to avoid using the inflections of have in preference of was because I strongly prefer to reserve words for their more literal meanings, and have is a marker of possession first, but I already forgot if that was the case here.
Do you have a reason for the preference @tchrist, or does it just seem odd to you?
03:30
I don't use that sort of "sequence of tenses".
If Jane was here before you, she must have taken the dog with her.
I use it only for real cases.
For unreal, I use had been.
In the past.
And were otherwise.
You're talking about unreality in the past, so it's had been for me.
user288256
Is this correct: "Statements like xyz sound like a blame"? Is "a" fine there? Without "a" it would sound awkward too, I'm thinking?
I don't understand what that's trying to say.
I don't even know what a blame is.
Blame is a verb.
You can use it as a noun, but not, I think, as a count noun.
@tchrist I believe Ghalib is referring to a comment he made to me earlier. I could dig up the context if you like.
user288256
yeah, "a blame" sounds wrong.
user288256
@Tonepoet You are right on. So can you correct my sentence?
03:36
@Ghalib I do not believe I can do so more adequately than tchrist already has.
Or did perhaps...
user288256
@tchrist So if I say "Those statements sound like blame" will that be correct? I changed the example a little. Hope it is understandable now.
No, they sound like they're blaming someone or something for whatever I don't know.
A statement is not blame.
user288256
I see
user288256
Thanks
Blame is guilt stuff.
> blame (uncountable)
Censure.
Blame came from all directions.
Culpability for something negative or undesirable.
The blame for starting the fire lies with the arsonist.
Responsibility for something meriting censure.
Noun: blame (uncountable)
  1. Censure.
  2. Blame came from all directions.
  3. Culpability for something negative or undesirable.
  4. The blame for starting the fire lies with the arsonist.
  5. Responsibility for something meriting censure.
(2 more not shown…)
some of those are examples.
03:42
@tchrist We need a better onebox, that doesn't include illustrative quotations as definitions.
You can see whether anyone's already filed a bug against this on MSE.
I think they have. I don't think we can actually do anything about it because the error is on Wikipedia's end if I recall correctly.
user288256
@tchrist So, if someone writes something, for example, "You forgot to perform your duty again and now look at what you have created, a mess." That 'statement' sounds like a "blame" doesn't it?
No.
It sounds like you're blaming someone.
user288256
oh okay
03:45
I recommend that you stop trying to use blame as a noun.
user288256
I was confused a little.
user288256
Thanks
@tchrist I'm not sure if your onebox fully corroborates your conclusion. The very first definition of blame given is censure:
Noun: censure (plural censures)
  1. The act of blaming, criticizing, or condemning as wrong; reprehension.
  2. Macaulay
  3. Both the censure and the praise were merited.
  4. An official reprimand.
  5. Judicial or ecclesiastical sentence or reprimand; condemnatory judgment.
(5 more not shown…)
Verb: censure (third-person singular simple present censures, present participle censuring, simple past and past participle censured)
  1. To criticize harshly.
  2. Shakespeare
  3. I may be censured that nature thus gives way to loyalty.
  4. To formally rebuke.
  5. (obsolete) To form or express a judgment in regard to; to estimate; to judge.
(2 more not shown…)
It seems t me as if the act of blaming, criticizing or condemning would require a statement.
You know it can't be used as Ghalib keeps proposing.
user288256
so, I kept proposing because I didn't know how to make that sentence correctly.
03:50
You're blaming them, but the statement is not "blame".
The statement is blaming them.
It is not itself blame.
Would you object to "It sounds kind of like blame to me"?
Probably.
Sounds like blaming is ok.
People can be to blame.
Even statements can.
You can take the blame for something you didn't do.
Who do you think I should put the blame on?
The rule of this game is that the players must make somebody or something else take the blame for their mistakes.
Thus nothing can be sinful, but the effect of choice : and yet the effect of choice never can be sinful, but only the cause, which alone is chargeable with all the blame.
Gentleman upon those grounds, it is very easy to throw the blame from one person to another.
This was certainly implying that all the blame, to whatever extent it might go, rested entirely with him.
It's easy to use quotations to validate a definition, but it's harder to use them to invalidate a definition unless you are purporting that a word is not polysemous.
I've said what I didn't think sounds right.
I've provided examples of things that do.
But statements are not blame. They can blame.
user288256
Maybe we could use words like "placing" or "assigning" to get our point across in the same kind of sentence. For example, "Statements like the one you wrote above sound like they are placing blame". Here I'm not calling a 'statement' 'blame' so it should be okay I reckon.
04:02
Yes, that's fine.
Good for you!
user288256
okay, cool. :)
user288256
Yay. Finally. Heh.
Sorry it's so hard, and I'm glad you found something that works.
user288256
yeah, "nouns" and "verbs" can be hard sometimes.
user288256
I read a lot but still make such mistakes. Trying to improve myself.
04:07
I'm surprised that Blame has gone untouched since 1887 in the O.E.D.
user288256
@Tonepoet Here it is morning, around 9 AM. It must be night there I'm guessing.
user288256
On weekdays I don't visit this early because I have to be at work.
@Ghalib The Twilight Zone is perpetually in twilight, irrespective of whatever time it is. XP
user288256
04:26
@Tonepoet Oh yeah? Last time I tried to ask you time you said "Wonderland is a timeless exemplar. :P" So I'm guessing you are in The Twilight Zone now. But that series is from 1980's. Are you that... I'm not saying old, I'm not =)
user288256
Maybe you are somewhere in Alice in Wonderland and Twilight crossover.
user288256
I was mixing up "The Twilight Saga" from this era, and "The Twilight Zone" from the 1980s.
05:13
@Ghalib You would be surprised how much can change in the time from 1865 to 1980.
I mean, it's a decade and a half over a century!
user288256
@Tonepoet I believe you. That's a long time span. By the way why did you choose "1865 to 1980"?
user288256
I mean are you referring to some lexical significance?
user288256
but please don't tell me you were alive in 1865. :)
05:29
@Ghalib I checked and that's the date Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was published.
user288256
Ah okay.
user288256
Cool.
@Ghalib Also, okay, I won't tell you that. =P
user288256
Why not? I want to know.
user288256
I didn't mean it that way. =)
user288256
05:33
You seem clever. that's fun.
user288256
@Tonepoet I read a part of that novel or maybe a short story based on it when I was in school. I haven't read the original novel yet. Have you?
@Ghalib Not entirely. I'm more familiar with the Disney adaptation. The animated Disney adaptation.
I'm seeking to collect a library of books, and surely it'll be there though.
user288256
@Tonepoet Awesome. So which genre of books?
user288256
I'm guessing dictionaries mostly :P
@Ghalib Yes, I do have a substantial collection of those now. Not quite as many as I would like, but it's hard to find dictionaries predating 1911, with the exception of Noah Webster's fascimile.
user288256
05:44
@Tonepoet Okay, that's a nice. I like to keep dictionaries in my house as well. But why do you need dictionaries predating 1911? I mean those dictionaries could just confuse you, no?
user288256
Meanings change sometimes. And it has been more than a century since 1911.
user288256
@Tonepoet So one of my hobbies is making notes in English, I like to write things in English, anything that comes to mind while I'm on a computer. It is good for English and improves my writing style. I used to have difficulty coming up English sentences while talking to people, like, in writing so that's a good exercise.
@Ghalib I seek to use words in accordance to their earliest known definitions to the limit of The American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, predicated partially on the assumption that a word is a tool for remembering a concept. Webster's dictionary served as the best record for that for quite a long time, and some of his orthographies became widespread even in Britain.
However in having said that, I already have years of experience with casually acquired meanings, rather than strict definitions which makes adherence to the principle difficult.
user288256
@Tonepoet But wouldn't strict adherence to using words in accordance to their earliest known definitions make you sound unnatural sometime? I mean just curious.
@Ghalib That's a difficult question to answer. I'm pretty sure nobody says cute to literally mean sharp anymore. However, overall I think that up until around the 1960s, at which point in time a change in philosophy occured, the dictionaries have done an excellent job at preserving meanings that would have otherwise decayed.
They vaguely still have that effect, but to a lesser extent because they're no longer considered guidance tools for the most part.
Also, placing a limit to what is furthest back you can reasonably go and still consider our language to be the same as what our predecessors used prevents the worst of it. I think most people can understand 19th century English fluently. Many great works of literature considered required reading for the children of today are from the 19th century, including Alice in Wonderland, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, &c.
This is especially true of the late 19th century, when universal compulsory education laws were beginning to legislated in English culture.
user288256
06:08
And Gulliver's Travels, but that's older I guess.
@Ghalib I also forgot that Dickins was also a 19th century author, so you can count A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist and a Tale of Two Cities as well.
I also acquired the original 1952 edition of the Great Books of the Western World, and one of the introductory books, The Great Conversation, notes that all of the works in the collection predate the 20th century, except some of Frued's:
Great Books of the Western World is a series of books originally published in the United States in 1952, by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., to present the Great Books in a 54-volume set. The original editors had three criteria for including a book in the series: the book must be relevant to contemporary matters, and not only important in its historical context; it must be rewarding to re-read; and it must be a part of "the great conversation about the great ideas", relevant to at least 25 of the 102 great ideas identified by the editors. The books were not chosen on the basis of ethnic and cultural...
user288256
06:26
@Tonepoet In hardcopy? That's a 54-volume set.
user288256
you will be needing a 'library' at your place soon.
@Ghalib Yes. They take up just a little over two rows on a bookshelf.
user288256
I see, nice
However there are some notable gaps in the original collection, mostly in terms of literature. The original set deliberately omitted some American authors, like Twain for instance. The second edition remedied this somewhat, but you can see how that leaves me in a position where I'd like to fill out the collection a little better.
And of course the wealth of 20th century books that are worthy are fairly well known now. J.R.R.Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, George Orwell, Vladmir Nabokov and J.K. Rowling are all noteworthy writers who come to mind.
user288256
Yeah. Perhaps you could just buy the "literature" sets from the second edition and fill in the gaps in the original collection if you want?
user288256
06:39
Is J.K. Rowling of the 20th century or 21st century?
@Ghalib The first three books in the Harry Potter series make the deadline. The fourth depends upon whether you count the year 2000 as part of the 20th century, or the 21st.
She was already world-famous with the success of the first novel though, so I'd count her as preeminently a 20th century author, unless she writes something that supersedes the popularity of her early works by a considerable margin, which I doubt.
user288256
@Tonepoet Btw you say "fill out the collection" I say "fill in the collection". Is my version correct too?
@Ghalib There are contexts where you'd say fill in, but I'd consider fill out the collection a set phrase.
user288256
oh okay, thanks.
user288256
Yeah your version sounds natural too.
06:51
@Ghalib Well here's the thing about that. The second edition only begins to touch upon the 20th century, and the books are much better bound and a different color from my own. I also suspect they're bigger. However, I think I can get books that will serve me just as well for cheaper, and if I wanted to go the expensive route, The Franklin Library, Easton Press and The Folio Society published the best bound books.
07:03
user288256
If you can get cheaper ones that serve the same purpose then by all means.
user288256
@Tonepoet Is that the bound of your book?
@Ghalib No. That's an example of an Easton Press book.
user288256
Looks nice.
user288256
I see
user288256
07:05
Hmm I can see why they are expensive now.
user288256
You can also get the digital copy and save the space and money I guess.
That's true,
user288256
But keeping hard copies at home is a nice feeling. I'm like that too somehow.
The Britannica Great Books books more like this:
Nice, but obviously not like Easton's et al.
 
5 hours later…
user288256
12:28
@Tonepoet I was aware of Encyclopædia Britannica, but I wasn't aware of The Franklin Library, Easton Press and The Folio Society. Maybe I have heard those names somewhere before, I can't remember
Books...pft
user288256
@Tonepoet I try not to keep hard copies at my home because I don't know about the environment you live in, but here, I get lots of dust in my home. It is not like I live in a desert, okay maybe you can call it a desert in a sense. The weather is like that of a desert. But anyway, the cleaning part (of the dust from the books) is what intimidates me.
Here's an American joke:
user288256
Unless I had a room that is kind of airtight with airconditioner and whatnot. The room I'm sitting in at the moment in is not air tight in anyway. And I clean dust in my room almost everyday, but it is not like sand.
We're all Americans when we're outside of the bathroom. What are we when we're in the bathroom?
European.
rimshot
user288256
12:40
I have heard that joke like a gazillion times man.
user288256
So take that rimshot back kiddo
user288256
Just kidding :D
You must have respiratory problems from not being able to stop laughing
user288256
haha
Ok another...
user288256
12:41
I do laugh.
Dang it I forgot already
user288256
I was thinking you were the Chris Rock of our chat. Don't disappoint me man, I need another joke, a good joke.
user288256
Oh I remember one.
user288256
But it is kind of rated so not suitable for mixed company I guess.
> Is sharia law taking over America?' I don't know, but I'm pretty sure Shakira law is, because ... hips don't lie.
ba dum tiss
12:51
:D
That's all I got.
I still laughing at the European one
Because...bathrooms
wipes tears from eyes
Doesn't work so great in an international setting.
But Shakira....
more laughing crying
user288256
@Mitch haha. I got it, you know I'm a muslim but still you cracked that joke. It's totally fine. I'm just messing with you. I laughed out loud at that joke by the way. But I have heard that one like a gazillion times too. So I'm not impressed, yet. Next joke please. :)
Your turn!
user288256
Okay
Actually, the shakira joke doesn't make sense at all it's just the putting the two side by side.
Like Shakira's hips!!!
I can't stop!
Ok just found this one...
Have you seen the latest movie 'Constipation'?
It hasn't come out yet.
user288256
13:10
Drink some milk and eat some bananas and it might come out all right.
That's a terrible movie
user288256
I found this one, but I don't know if it isn't in a good taste.
user288256
Let's see:
user288256
> I like my women how I like my showers. hot, wet, and turned on by command.
user288256
Well, I can't think of a sober joke. There are almost no sober jokes out there these days.
13:19
It's in good taste if you can replace women by men.
So I'd say that's a 'no'
user288256
Got it, dad.
user288256
Maybe only jokes like "Blah, blah, blah walks into a bar and..." are considered refined.
13:42
@Ghalib Well I doubt they are very well known because they're so expensive, and the marketplace isn't really there. The Franklin Library and the Folio Society don't publish anymore.
So a termite walks into a bar and asks 'is the bar tender here?'
user288256
That's a good one. claps
So a priest a rabbi and a mullah walk into a bar, and the bartender says 'Is this some kind of a joke?'
user288256
I hear that all the time.
user288256
Next joke.
user288256
13:45
;)
user288256
Just messing with you. But seriously, that is one trite joke man. Hopefully trite is the correct word to use here
user288256
@Tonepoet I see. Yeah makes sense
Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks them 'Does everyone want a drink?'. The first one says 'I don't know'. The second one says 'I don't know'. The third one says 'Yes!'
@Ghalib With leatherbound books, it's a little easier because the dust doesn't get embedded into the cover. I am not completely sure, but I think you can just use wipes like these:
Granted, that only works for the cover.
user288256
@Tonepoet Yeah thanks for the advice. That looks neat.
13:49
The other thing is that bookshelves with doors are made.
user288256
I mostly just use a duster, like a dusting cloth.
I don't get it. That's not funny
user288256
@Mitch Heh, we are past jokes here. Try to keep up. =)
I'm still regressing
I don't think something like this would allow very much dust to get in contact with your books in the first place:
13:54
So many words to read
'Tis not my bookshelf. Also I deleted it because I just noticed that there was some objectionable material among the books, which is all I'll say about that matter.
I know. I saw the copy of Last of the Mohicans. Twain would be aghast
user288256
I didn't see the bookshelf nor the objectionable material Tone. I was away, can you paste another pic again?
user288256
oh I see
user288256
14:02
Yeah I have something like that at my home, but it is only composed of one compartment so not very spacious.
user288256
@Tonepoet Is this correct English: "Can you paste another pic again?" My reasons for using both "another" and "again" in that sentence is you deleted the first one. But I'm not sure if that's correct English.
user288256
@Mitch Morning coffee might help.
I'm not currently in a position to be judging what English is correct at the sentence level, but nothing strikes me as especially wrong with it. I think if any complaint was to be made against it, it would be one of redundancy, since another already implies the sentiment of again, but I'm not so sure it would be a legitimate one.
user288256
I see, thank you
user288256
But since you are a native speaker of English, I think you are in a position to judge what English is correct at the sentence level? Those are simple sentences I ask about I guess.
user288256
14:17
But it is good to be sure. So I see what you mean.
I would like to have more expressible knowledge regarding syntax before I proffer certain opinions, otherwise it's just blind guesswork. I need to sit down and read An Improved Grammar of the English Language, and I also bought The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation by Bryan A. Garner recently.
user288256
Oh okay.
user288256
Good thing you got The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation.
user288256
And I had to look up the word "proffer". I knew the word, just don't see it often.
user288256
The meaning was pretty clear from the context, still I felt like reading its definition
user288256
15:26
Whenever my internet dies I feel like committing suicide. And it dies often.
user288256
Like a while ago.
user288256
but I have a lot to live for.
Is this because your internet link is your lifeline to a greater world beyond your current circumstances?
user288256
Yeah, something like that.
user288256
But your sentence was hard for me to understand at first. I had to reread it again.
15:55
I read it again just to make sure
Made the same sense as the first time
If it's not true then your life is way too complicated
user288256
@Mitch Mine? I don't follow.
I should've said was going to be here.
@Ghalib no, tchrist's sentence
I should have said a lot of things
But I held my tongue
user288256
@Tonepoet Got it, professor.
user288256
@Tonepoet By the way, you could ping just fine with "@" and "name" if you are on a phone or don't feel like replying to a specific message.
16:01
Wow all this education
user288256
I mean your ping earlier didn't reach anyone.
Typing on a phone is difficult
Editing is the hardest part
user288256
yeah
user288256
well I wouldn't know
user288256
I can't text on phone properly so I almost never use that feature
user288256
16:03
@Mitch And is your life complicated? I'm curious.
I am lazy and don't want to get up to walk over to my laptop. So I use my phone
user288256
Mine used to be when I was studying somewhere with someone.
@Ghalib I am spending time on the internet like you, so the natural inference given the above is no.
See? Annoying to edit
user288256
Yeah I couldn't understand you at first before you edited.
Also the font is so small
user288256
16:06
Then walk up to that laptop
And my thumbs so much bigger than the iOS keyboard keys
@Ghalib naw. Thatds mean I'd have to get up.
user288256
Then how are you able to reply to specific messages?
There is no way I'm going to do that
user288256
Can you do that on mobile?
@Ghalib yes
user288256
16:08
oh okay
user288256
Good
There's a button for it
There's a button to delete everything right next to it that makes me nervous because
user288256
@Mitch I didn't get this line "so the natural inference given the above is no." I mean I think I know what you mean, but can you say that in simpler terms?
user288256
I just like to read things carefully, so apologies for little English related queries.
user288256
Where did you go green?
user288256
16:12
Okay, see you around.
16:34
> 1: a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct
Mother's favorite maxim was “Don't count your chickens before they hatch.”
2: a proverbial saying
advised her daughter with the maxim “marry in haste, repent at leisure”
How are these two definitions different?
The only difference I can find is that the first one allows for maxims that are not popularly known.
But the example immediately belies that, kind of.
16:50
14
Q: What is the difference between a proverb, an adage and an aphorism?

z7sg ѪDictionary definitions of all three are very similar, typically something like: a pithy observation which contains a general truth But the wikipedia entries for each are quite different. Are these words largely interchangeable synonyms? In the wikipedia entry for adage, for example, a pro...

Funny that all the minutiae that distinguish the OED definitions from each other are altogether absent from the respective ODO definitions.
 
1 hour later…
18:06
Is it really? Oxford Dictionaries Online is a compilation of entries from abridged and specialty dictionaries.

In fact, it's probably not even the same lexicography team working on both. The chief editor of the last edition of the *Oxford Dictionary of English* in 2010, which seems to be the primary source of O.D.O. definitions was Angus Stevenson, whereas it seems as if Josh Simpson retired his position as the chief editor of the O.E.D. proper in 2013. The two Oxford dictionaries might only really share a publisher.
I wonder what the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has to say about the matter.
18:19
Yeah, I don't think the ODO is derived from the OED.
@tchrist I suppose that's the surprising thing about it. The same publishing house seem to prefer to base their abridged dictionaries on the unabridged flagship product, or at least they purport to do so. I know at least Random House has a credit indicating that in their College dictionary.
18:37
I think they purposefully, and wisely, decided ODE not to be the abridgment of OED. The two dictionaries answer different needs and even target somewhat different readerships.
(OK, readership isn't the word for the users of a dictionary, but it's too late to make corrections, so...)
19:11
Would a pusshopper be hopping over kitties or shopping for pus?
@tchrist It depends upon where you place the hyphen.
And they say hyphens are dead. :)
@tchrist Not quite yet. We'll probably see the removal of the mark in its entirety from the Shorter O.E.D. 7th edition.
That's how they'll make it shorter.
Only if they don't replace them all with spaces. XP

« first day (2411 days earlier)      last day (2806 days later) »