Tina: I had a strange dream last night.
Jack: Well, dreams are always strange. I've never had an absolutely "normal" dream. So what did you dream about?
Tina: I dreamed about a skyscraper devouring a small "Starbucks"
How to call a part of a dialogue that is spoken by one person? (There are ...
As to the editing question, if the OP doesn't like your edit you should just back off. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Or, as Groucho Marx said when asked to use horticulture in a sentence: "You can lead a horticulture [whore to culture] but you can't make her think."
Hard to say. If people insist on expressing themselves in their own way, though that way may be ungrammatical and, in fact, stupid, there's really not much you can do about it.
The most you can do is point out some of the more egregious contradictions and solecisms in a comment in that case. He can't delete your comment, and you will be on record with your emendations.
I don't think I have ever been in an edit war on Wiki, probably because everybody is supposed to be equal there; here I feel that if all 1000+ users agree that something is wrong, it might be ok to force it upon a new user to cease.
Just say something sharp, like "I'm sorry, you're right: it is presumptuous of me to try to make you look smarter than you are." Then retire from the field, victorious.
Or you can just think those words, knowing they are the truth.
I've got an impression that there is (or was) a rule in English:
If you have a borrowed word with two vowel letters in a row, corresponding to two vowel sounds in a row (as opposed to a diphthong or single vowel sound marked by two letters), you have to mark a second vowel with a trema.
For ex...
The Wiktionary show whereäs as a valid alternative spelling of the word whereas (see here).
It gives the following quotations to illustrate the usage:
1 Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses,
Report of Proceedings — Milan (1905)
After a dry season, the influenc...
If you show up and find out she is like the joke made by Lucas Corso in The Club Dumas (recommended to me by @RegDwight, and a good read), in which he refers to "A whore who was so ugly she died a virgin"?
I was rather thinking of curvatures and hillocks...
@F'x: I could never quite understand relativity... that is, I can understand what the text says and how to calculate minor stuff, but I don't feel I can quite grasp the concept.
Or there's John Donne's famous geographical pickup line: "No man is an island." (Implication: let's get together and have hot monkey love.) He cleverly concealed it in a larger statement, but his meaning was clear to the cognoscenti.
There could be 270k instances of non-native abominations on Google, so yeah, go for it. 90% of them probably reference the same post in the same thread on the same BBS.
I used to search the sites of the major English papers in such cases with a single custom bookmark keyword; unfortunately most of them have been closed to Google.
I was thinking of Nohat, Kosmonaut, etc, who use the word grammatical as an indicator of something's being said following a certain rule by a certain group.
(I actually thought Rob misread my 10k; I sometimes misread the silliest things; people will often not believe that I really didn't get something exceedingly obvious...)
Ah yay!
Damn irony, messing up all communication, even while absent.
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between 'I'm cross with you' and 'I'm angry with you'?
I have the feeling that being cross with someone (by the way, can you be cross 'at'? or is one always cross 'with'?) is more used in Britain than in the US. Is that correct?
In fact, it's a way of stating that you're angry with someone in a softer way. It often acts as a euphemism for angry when someone doesn't want to be that confrontational.
@psmears Well, what I was trying express was frustration: You have like 1 tidbit of information on a page, and the rest of the page are seamlessly added ads; I wanted to search for "answers.com + garbage" to find commiseration.
@Cerberus Ah, no. I'm not against ad-blocking. I'm not at my native computer right now, so I just dled Chrome and added Ad-Block.
@Cerberus But things really shouldn't have gotten that far. There are still prominently ranked sites that have basically no information ranked far above us in Google search, which is just wrong.
@Cerberus Yeah, Q/A sites. And the extremely hated Answers.com and Yahoo Answers.
For example, I was searching for Animal Farm to confirm something. (Would you describe Donkey Benjamin there as laconic?)
Animal Farm, as you know, is a classic work of the English language. Orwell wrote it in like '30s or '40s, this should be public domain available to anybody who wants to read it.
Moreover, we don't have a general questions site: that is probably why we get much less questions than answers.com, and why we have much better content too.
Donkey Benjamin... it is so long ago, I can't remember.
But no a single damn site other than Gutenberg has it open for reading on the clickable results; you have wade through pages with dancing restaurant signs all over them.
This is Orwell we're talking about! If he's not safe, what is?!
They only need 0.0000001% of the viewers to buy something off those sites to make the ads worth while I think, because displaying ads is so damn cheap.
Another problem is I can't stop myself from clicking anyway. They have really managed to master SEO...they know exactly how much to clip just so you hope it might be relevant... See this answer here: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081008105826AAaFhsd
Then there is brand recognition: merely viewing the ad from the corner of an eye will impress their brand onto your memory, which will result in your recognizing it when you see it in a shop; and recognition breeds trust, as in, "hey I have seen this brand some time before, so it can't be totally obscure and evil".
@Billare I found myself more willing to click on them once I realised that doing so costs the advertiser money... so if there's a particularly loathsome advert, I sometimes click on it (and then close the browser tab shortly afterwards!)
I just don't go to answers.com anymore, period. It's like Ambrose Bierce's definition of aphorism: "an army of words escorting a corporal of thought" — in this case, each answers.com page is an army of ads and popups escorting a corporal of content.
(I am officially away; but, again, use Adblock+ on FF! I see zero ads on answers.com. And use Noscript if you dislike pop-ups: I think I get maybe one pop-under ever few months while browsing.)
> 1800 E. Hervey Mourtray Fam. I. 149 This cold laconic note+let down all Emma's hopes. 1833 H. Martineau Berkeley Banker i. ii. 29 ‘None but friends, I see’, said the laconic Mr. Williams. 1850 Kingsley Alt. Locke xxix. (1879) 311 That+laconic dignity, which is the good side of the English peasants' character. 1888 A. K. Green Behind Closed Doors iii, ‘Trust me’ was his laconic rejoinder.
But I suppose it would depend on your perspective. Laconic remarks may be viewed as negative by their target even while everyone else has a good laugh, as is often the case.
Well, in the sense that bluntness and honesty are a form of wit, yes.
Here's one example of a laconic putdown: 'The composer Johannes Brahms was guest-conducting an orchestra, and in rehearsal he was asked by one of the musicians if he liked the tempo. He quipped: "Yes, yours especially so".'
And another: "One famous example comes from the time of the invasion of Philip II of Macedon. With key Greek city-states in submission, he turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: 'If I win this war, you will be slaves forever."The Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: "If."'
In heaven, the cooks are French, the engineers are German, and the police are English. In hell, the cooks are English, the engineers are French, and the police are German.