English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Cerberus

14:00

Yeah!

Robusto

Nah. That one's beneath even my dignity.

RegDwight

Robusto

Besides, I'm only whoring so I can save up enough to get out of this business.

RegDwight

Apr 13 at 13:29, by RegDwight

Ich war jung und brauchte das Geld.

Cerberus

You need a Rolls Royce to drive away in proper style?

Robusto

14:02

I dream of the day when I won't have to debase myself like this. Go ahead, laugh if you like. Mock me. But EL&U made me a whore — and now I intend to make EL&U my brothel!

RegDwight

Bin ich dann die Puffmutter?

Cerberus

Right! As long as we don't have to be your clients.

Oh wait we are giving you rep...

@RegDwight Good video. I like Homer.

RegDwight

You are slow, arencha? I posted that video like yesterday.

Cerberus

And why on earth did you think I waited until now, a time when all context had been washed off?

Now who's slow between us...

RegDwight

0

A: Difference between "yours" and "your"?

"your" is already a possessive, and "yours" is a noun and does not have a plural form. He found a book - is it yours? I can't find my wallet, but yours is on the table. Yours is a better idea. Yours sincerely Yours affectionately <---- Sounds like something said at the end of a letter pas...

Robusto

14:04

Whores don't like slow. Whores like fast. Get faster. C'mon, I hear bells.

RegDwight

Yours is a noun, apparently.

Cerberus

Bells?

RegDwight

Bells is a past participle. In vocative plural.

Cerberus

@RegDwight I'd say yours does indeed function as a noun... but to call it that goes a bit far.

Vocative plural, even? Sweet. What gender and what aspect?

RegDwight

Well, the thing is, his terminology is a bit wackelig.

Robusto

14:07

►

RegDwight

@Cerberus Past gender and beautiful aspect.

Cerberus

@Reg: Are you flirting with it?

RegDwight

Vocatively.

Vitaly

@RegDwight Three quarks for Muster @RegDwight!

Robusto

@Vitaly Joyce, b'God!

RegDwight

14:08

I am not a mustard.

Cerberus

@Robusto What a lovely scene. Perhaps it could have profited from some bodily fluids. Then it'd have been perfect.

RegDwight

The movie is teh awesum.

Robusto

See? She said "I hear bells."

Vitaly

> In the past, top and bottom quarks were sometimes referred to as "truth" and "beauty" respectively, but these names have mostly fallen out of use.

Cerberus

Haha that sounds a bit silly.

Vitaly

14:10

I'd rather they kept the "truth" and "beauty" names.

RegDwight

Hey, I haven't fallen out of use!

Cerberus

Sounds like bordering on Plato / Intelligent Design...

Robusto

@RegDwight — Relax, he's not talking about the "strange" quark.

Cerberus

@Reg: Oh are you those too? I thought you were just mustard.

RegDwight

Phew.

3 mins ago, by RegDwight

I am not a mustard.

Cerberus

14:12

Oh. I am slow.

Hey are the Latin words for the functions in the board or whatever it's called of a club or society ever used in English, like quaestor, assessor, ab-actis?

Robusto

Meh, I had to debase myself after all, given prem shankar's spurious answer.

Cerberus

What a surprise.

Robusto

@Cerberus — You're just jealous because you have standards.

Cerberus

Could be.

RegDwight

@Robusto You just jinxed Alennanno.

Cerberus

14:18

Incidentally, I know most people use the terms as you did, but I am generally not very happy with the use of possessive pronoun v. adjective.

Robusto

I got there first.

RegDwight

The problem is I still have no idea what the actual question there is.

Is he asking for the PoS?

Robusto

@Cerberus — I waited for someone to give a good answer, but when prem stepped in with his claptrap I had no choice. He forced my hand.

Cerberus

I know!

RegDwight

Is he asking for popularity?

Robusto

14:20

I mean, "your affectionately"? WTF?

Why do people who can't speak English keep posting answers to this site?

RegDwight

Hey!

Cerberus

I just think they are both pronouns, one being adjectival and the other not. The problem is that the silly English language decided to call only substantive nouns nouns, whereas it would be much, much better to call adjectives nouns as well, as in all other languages.

Robusto

Present company excepted, of course.

RegDwight

I feel like dissed or something.

Ah, mkay.

Cerberus

@Robusto Hey don't be mean to me.

RegDwight

14:21

Jinx.

Cerberus

Oh pfew.

RegDwight

You are slow, ~~buddy~~ doggy.

Cerberus

I really am!

Robusto

reply

Cerberus

I was typing my long line.

Robusto

14:21

43 secs ago, by Robusto

Present company excepted, of course.

Cerberus

Yes we got it thank you.

RegDwight

No, you didn't.

Cerberus

No?

Robusto

An extra boff with the nerf bat for the doggy.

RegDwight

It's only 43 seconds old.

You are not that fast.

Cerberus

14:22

Oh right. reading

Robusto

25 mins ago, by Robusto

►

Cerberus

typing...

RegDwight

Hey, don't overwhelm him.

Cerberus

Oh! Is that what you meant.

RegDwight

No.

Cerberus

14:23

Okay I give up. So many words.

RegDwight

Two words:

Cerberus

Two? Oh come on can't you start with one word?

RegDwight

Word.

Vitaly

Is there any documented evidence of injury casused by running with scissors? —Skeptics.SE

Cerberus

Thank you.

@Vitaly: What beautiful style, emulating NNSese!

RegDwight

14:24

To be fair, it's closed.

Robusto

Isn't this a dupe?

0

Q: How and why have some words changed to a complete opposite.?

One example that comes to mind is terrific which originally denoted something quite terrorising while now it has positive connetations... How and why did these changes occur ?

early-modern-english

Cerberus

Haha.

I have no idea I'm too slow.

RegDwight

@Robusto Um, not sure. I only remember the "which words mean different things in different regions" and my very own list of auto-antonyms.

Robusto

Oh, btw @Cerberus, about the women thing?

RegDwight

But it's a rather poorly worded question, IMHO.

Cerberus

14:26

Haha. Nice.

And she is even laughing.

Besides, why is that door not closed?

Robusto

No need. She still thinks there's candy.

RegDwight

Then we had impregnable, inflammable, equivocal, and whatnot.

Robusto

So there's no need.

Like, how much need? None.

RegDwight

And then there's this:

1

Q: How often do words change meaning then revert back to their original meaning?

Words can change meaning over time. A good example of this would be 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'merry' to 'homosexual'. Over the past decade, it has also taken on pejorative connotations. How often do words change meaning then revert back to their original meaning? Is this a one-way s...

meaning etymology vocabulary

Robusto

@RegDwight: Please, please, please migrate that to Physics.SE. It is really a question about quantum mechanics.

Cerberus

14:29

@Rob: I see. True.

English lexical categories really are a mess. They are worse than those of any other language I know. The definition of "noun" messes everything up. It is unbearable.

... but I know that is off topic for this chat room.

Robusto

@RegDwight: Speaking of physics, looks like you're in luck:

Cerberus

Awww cute.

RegDwight

Hehe, that's a famous one.

I see that Kosmonaut is around. Now I can safely leave.

Gotta shop for beer.

Then, a BBQ party with some friends.

Robusto

Why do you have to shop for the beer?

RegDwight

Cause my wife is currently in another country.

Robusto

14:45

Oh. Now I see why you can suddenly go to parties.

RegDwight

Totally.

You seem to have been missing a lot of hints.

I mean, LEGO!

Robusto

Wow, LEGO parties? Really?

That's a level of geekness I didn't even imagine existed.

RegDwight

Nah, not Lego parties. I mean, yes, Lego parties, but nobody else was invited.

Robusto

RegDwight

Mmmmmhhhh...

Ha, sick was the one I was thinking of. Have a +1.

Robusto

14:51

Already gave you yours. That's three in one day. I'm getting dizzy from upvoting you.

Kosmonaut

That's mad sick yo

F'x

hi all

RegDwight

Bye all!

Robusto

Howdy.

Robusto

15:18

@RegDwight — Actually, I was right. They didn't fix it yesterday. But they are going to fix it today. See colloquy w/ Nick Craver on both mentioned questions.

Vitaly

18:12

@Cerberus Could you make a case for it without defenestrating the defining properties of nouns as listed on p. 326 of CGEL?

Cerberus

@Vit: Make a case for what exactly? For calling "your" a pronoun?

Besides, I don't know what CGEL picked as criteria...

I basically think the terminology is beyond repair in English.

Vitaly

“it would be much, much better to call adjectives nouns as well, as in all other languages”

Robusto

How are adjectives nouns in other languages?

Vitaly

1) nouns prototypically inflect for number and for case
2) they function as head in NP structure
3) determinatives, relative clauses, pre-head ADjPs occur with nouns as head, and they don't take objects
as per *CGEL*

Robusto

In Japanese, for example, they act more like verbs, in that they can take a past tense. Tanoshii = fun, tanoshikatta = was fun.

Cerberus

18:19

Noun comes from Latin nomen. It is Naamwoord in Dutch, and probably something similar in German. The same applies for the Romance languages.

Robusto

Well, in German, der lange Karl means "tall Karl" and lange certainly modifies Karl.

Cerberus

Anything is a nomen that can be declined, which adjectives can in nearly all languages. They can take gender, number, and/or case.

Then there are verbs, which can be conjugated; and the rest.

The word "adjective" is an adjective. What noun would you say it modifies? What is the implicit head?

Vitaly

do adjectives prototypically inflect for number and for case in English?

Cerberus

They used to.

Robusto

Well, some adjectives can be nouns in English, some can't. We can speak of the "blue sky" or the "blue of the sky"; and we can speak of "tall buildings" but we can't speak of the "tall" of buildings: we have to make a noun out of tall by turning into tallness.

Cerberus

18:22

Some nomina still do, like this/these, that/those.

Vitaly

the gerund and the participle used to have different endings in English too, that's not a reason to differentiate them in PDE

it makes far more sense to call them gerund-participials

Cerberus

@Rob: Exactly: the fact that adjectives can sometimes be turned into nouns ans vice versa is another hint that they are related.

PDE?

Vitaly

Present-day English

Robusto

But nouns can be verbs and vice versa as well.

I can "gift" someone with a present, and I can feel some "give" in a line I have just tied.

Cerberus

Oh. Well, I don't think a terminology is good if it shuts off any and all possibility of comparison with other languages, as well as any consistency in describing the development of English into its present form.

@Rob: That is true. It isn't an important argument.

Vitaly

18:25

Do I smell pre? ;P

Cerberus

Yes.

Vitaly

The cool guys are de.

Cerberus

But I am basically arguing from a de point of view here.

Vitaly

trying to apply Latin grammar to English and to keep its terminology even though it doesn't make sense in PDE anymore is so characteristic of pre

Cerberus

I am saying 1.) current terms are messy and inconsistent; and 2.) they inhibit comparison as explained above.

Robusto

18:28

@Vitaly: Yes. This is why, for example, people decided it was wrong to end an English sentence with a preposition: because Latin didn't!

Vitaly

Hear, hear.

Cerberus

Okay, @Vit, why wouldn't we abolish all old terms and simply call "book" a word of type 1, "big" type 2, "the" type 3, etc.? Two reasons: A. it makes no sense to force anybody to learn an entirely new system, too much work; and B. the new terms aren't a great improvement in general.

I think new terms need to be a great improvement that we could not implement without tossing old terms: otherwise, bad idea.

Another point: if you have decided that you need new terms, they should not take a word from the old system and apply it in a way contrary to how it was used there. Use an entirely new word, then, such as determiner.

Vitaly

As for me, I think the minimalist approach should be taken

as long as the gerund and the participle are indistinguishable in PDE, they should be merged into the gerund-participial

nouns and adjectives, on the other hand, they are clearly distinguishable

Cerberus

Indistinguishable in what way: formally or functionally?

Vitaly

in the case of prototypical nouns and prototypical adjectives

functionally, according to CGEL

Cerberus

18:33

Hah!

A very strong case could be made why it would make sense to distinguish them functionally.

Whenever an -ing form can function in place of a (substantive) noun, call it a gerund; elsewhere, call it a participle.

Moreover, we have these terms and the distinction; it serves us well; I need a good reason to switch, not the novelty of it.

And if in some context it is more useful to consider them as one class, fine, but then use a different word, such as -ing form. What's wrong with -ing form? Perfectly clear, and it doesn't hinder the terms participle and gerund in any way.

Vitaly

1. She had witnessed the killing of the birds
2. He was expelled for killing the birds.
3. They are entertaining the prime minister.
4. The show was entertaining.

1 is, according to CGEL, a gerundial noun

2 and 3, the gerund-participial form of verb

and 4, the participial adjective

Cerberus

Conventional grammar would call 1 and 2 gerunds, 3 and 4 participles. You may need a different classification in some contexts, but in most this one sevres fine.

Vitaly

the distinction is quite blurry, IMO

Cerberus

Look, do you agree that in essence it is an arbitrary choice, which terms we use and which criteria we apply?

Vitaly

which terms we use, yes

which criteria we apply, not so much

Cerberus

18:41

No?

Why not?

We should use whichever criteria are most useful to us in a given context.

Vitaly

the arbitrary choice part would have been true if English itself were an arbitrary language with no meaningful order

“Bird kill expelling for him”

as long as English has an internal structure, that is, grammar, our criteria are functionally limited

besides, if the traditional distinction between gerunds and participles is to be maintained, it must be based primary on properties of the subjectless construction

which isn't the only possible construction involving the gerund-participial

Cerberus

Well, I could say "I call all words starting with a alphaticals". Is that bad? The only thing you say about it would be that it would not be very useful in many contexts. I could say "I call any word or phrase an adverb that can serve as an adverbial constituent in a sentence". Is that bad? It think that might be quite useful; but is it better than saying "only one-word adverbial constituents are called adverbs, and the rest we call adverbial phrases"? That is arbitrary to a great extent.

*the only thing you could say about it...

Vitaly

don't modern grammarians call one-word adverbial constituents APs too?

Cerberus

AP? See, that is another thing I dislike about modernist terms: they are often completely obscure unless you already know what they mean.

Vitaly

lol

Cerberus

18:49

I don't mean this personally, of course: I know you are defending your system...

Vitaly

it appears from the transcript of this chatroom that you happen to possess CGEL, no?

Cerberus

Yes but not at home.

Vitaly

oh well

Cerberus

Perhaps we should stick with participle v. gerund: in what situation is your system more useful than mine, in a non-arbitrary way, and one that could not be mended by adding more specific adjectives to my terms?

Vitaly

You are making me want to type 3 pages of CGEL as an answer.

Cerberus

18:53

Hehe.

I have read some articles in it, and, while quite good, they did not at all convince me that all those new terms were absolutely necessary.

Vitaly

But I will just ask you to open it to pp. 1220-1222 whenever you get physical access to it.

Cerberus

I only have it digitally any way.

Vitaly

wait what?

Cerberus

Yup, there is a cd.

Vitaly

my copy of CGEL didn't come with a cd

Cerberus

18:55

Perhaps it also exists online, let me see.

I think the cd is sold separately?

Vitaly

if that's the case, I somehow missed it everywhere I looked

are you sure we are talking about the same book?

cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel

Cerberus

To be honest I downloaded it once when I wanted to look something up at my parents' house where the vpn to my university didn't work; I haven't used it much. But yes it is the same book.

Vitaly

Not this one (which comes with a CD, by the way)?

Cerberus

I don't think so. But now that you mention it, it is odd that I can't find it on cd anywhere online now.

Vitaly

I was trying to find an electronic version of CGEL for the past few years

because searching in a hardcopy 1800-page tome is tedious

…and I haven't succeeded

Cerberus

19:04

Well I'll check what I have at my parent's computer! Now I am intrigued. I could have sworn it was the true CGEL.

Vitaly

OK, I hope it is.

Cerberus

Yeah! It had quite an elaborate DRM system.

Vitaly

do you remember what it looks like?

does it look like this?

Cerberus

I think not.

It had a red-and-white Cambridge logo...

That's pretty much all I remember.

Vitaly

That's odd.

Cerberus

19:11

Well you've made me doubt.

It was a grammar for sure, that I am sure about.

We will know in a few hours!

If you couldn't find it, then the most logical conclusion must be that I don't have it. Perhaps it was the CGE after all, now I am really not sure.

Vitaly

or maybe I failed at finding it

there are samples of the true CGEL available from Cambridge Press for free: cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/sample.htm

which means that Cambridge Press has an electronic version of it, which for some reason is unavailable

but theoretically it could have been available for a short timeframe

Cerberus

Yeah they'd be depriving themselves of income!

"The traditional distinction between
restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses ﬁts in here, but we shall use different terms
and contrast them with two further categories, cleft and fused relatives."

From the first page of chapter 12. They practically admit that the old terms are fine; then why force us to learn another new set of terms? Sorry, I am a bit frustrated.

Vitaly

No idea.

I haven't read it from cover to cover (quite the opposite, to be honest).

Cerberus

Hehe.

Vitaly

I would have if it were an e-book.

And I would have paid twice the price of the hardcopy for a damned electronic CGEL.

Cerberus

19:23

Yeah? Isn't it more comfortable to read a real book if you're going to read it cover to cover? I find the greatest advantage of digital versions to be that I can search much more quickly for specific words etc.

Vitaly

Not when it's 1800 pages and 2.61 kg.

Cerberus

Perhaps not on the airplane...

Then again, they could split it up in volumes?

Vitaly

If only you had been there to enlighten them about it.

Cerberus

Hehe. I know!

Robusto

20:23

BTW, you people are aware that "I call [object]" is American vernacular for "I lay claim to [object]"?

Well, that cleared everyone out.

RegDwight

21:55

@Robusto I call shenanigans!

Cerberus

22:16

@Rob: I am aware of that, as in "I call dibs on..."? But surely you do not mean that saying "some people call it a noun" would be contrary to idiom?

RegDwight

1

A: History of the phrase "break wind".

most probably from the word "flatulence": 1590s, from M.Fr. flatulent, from Mod.L. flatulentus, from L. flatus "a blowing, a breaking wind," pp. of flare "to blow, puff," which is cognate with O.E. blawan

Cerberus

@Reg: Hai.

RegDwight

Um, Cerberus, you're the Latin guy here, tell me what you think of that answer.

Cerberus

I say it isn't an answer.

RegDwight

Does flatus have anything to do with break?

Cerberus

22:18

Not at all.

RegDwight

It appears the author suggests it's a calque...

Okay. Thanks.

Cerberus

It means blowing.

Cf. inflation.

Blown-up prices etc.

I think his dictionary says "breaking a wind" because it wants to indicate that flatus was used in the sense of, well, letting out bodily gases, in addition to more neutral kinds of blowing—not the other way around.

RegDwight

Could you please leave a comment to that extent?

I have left mine, but more pressure would help.

Cerberus

OK.

RegDwight

Thanks a bunch.

Hi @Vitaly.

Cerberus

22:31

Oh I was going to check whether I actually had the CGEL as I thought I did.

RegDwight

You have to check that? As in, you don't just remember?

Cerberus

Yeah I only used it once, months ago.

Vitaly

Hi @RegDwight

Cerberus

I don't need no grammer!

Ah! You were right, Vit. It is the stuped CGE.

RegDwight

I have some grammers on sale.

Only $9.99

Cerberus

22:32

feels humiliated

RegDwight

Them's quality grammers, too. From Kazakhstan.

Cerberus

I could probably use one, considering my stupidity.

RegDwight

That's not stupidity, that's just slowliness.

Extreme slowliness.

Cerberus

Are you wearing a weird '70s fitness outfit that hardly reveals your ehm body?

RegDwight

You do grasp stuff. It just takes forever.

Cerberus

22:33

It does.

RegDwight

@Cerberus s/reveals/conceals/

Cerberus

That better?

I think I was subconsciously thinking of bare...

RegDwight

Now my joke makes no sense.

Not that it ever did.

Vitaly

@Cerberus Oh well.

Cerberus

No comment.

@Vit: I'm going to browse the true CGEL next week then; the English department of the uni library is a hundred meters from my house. I wonder what I shall find! Any recommendations as to convincing evangelical materials?

Vitaly

22:37

pp. 1220-1222.

Cerberus

Oh right.

RegDwight

No wait. My comment still makes sense.

I am so proud of myself.

Cerberus

Oh damn, I am humiliated again.

RegDwight

It's okay, nothing new.

Cerberus

I should have edited in "nearly", but "hard" crept in somehow. Even worse than "bare".

Vitaly

22:38

But then it refers to other parts of the book, @Cer. ;)

Cerberus

Eh yes, well, not the good parts, probably!

RegDwight

@Cerberus Lulz. No worries, your time will come. Eventually, you will kick my ass. Once I cross the Styx.

Man sieht sich im Leben immer zweimal.

Cerberus

Absolutely! Better start checking Ebay for that obol...

Unless you plan some heroic deed any time soon.

RegDwight

OMG, look at these prices, them's insane. I must sell more grammers.

Vitaly

And then if you still disagree with CGEL, you can debate one of its authors (Geoffrey K. Pullum) right on LanguageLog, with which, I believe, you are familiar.

Cerberus

22:41

I don't think an obol would cost more than 10 USD... or perhaps a little bit more.

RegDwight

Yeah, just go there and say, I have read your rubbish book, you suck.

Cerberus

@Vit: It is not so much that I disagree with CGEL (I don't even know what it says), but rather that I find many terms used in modern linguistics unsatisfactory. Even so their system does work.

Vitaly

@Cerberus Then you should definitely convince Geoffrey K. Pullum to write a brand-new grammar!

Cerberus

Because, after all, any set of terms is largely an arbitrary choice, for practical purposes.

Vitaly

Huh? A message of mine has just been lost?

Oh. Drat.

RegDwight

22:45

@Vitaly Which one? Where? Ah! Isee.

Cerberus

@Vit: I have seen his name on LL, yes. And I must say I am not always a huge fan of its inflammatory, tradition bashing style. I have seen the straw man fallacy committed on it several times. Even so its linguistic skills are fine.

Yeah I don't see any disappeared messages!

Vitaly

@RegDwight Never mind, I have somehow edited an older message of mine, and thought I was writing a new one.

RegDwight

chat.stackexchange.com/messages/877195/history

Cerberus

Aww.

RegDwight

It's all there.

Vitaly

22:46

Anyway, I am saying that with a view to getting a digital grammar by Pullum.

RegDwight

In case you can access that link, that is.

Vitaly

Instead of that horrible 1800-page tome that weighs 2.61 kg.

RegDwight

@Cerberus you see that comment?

3

Q: History of the phrase "break wind".

The choice of the verb "break" seems a strange choice for the phrase. Does anybody know where this phrase originated?

etymology

Cerberus

@Vit: Well perhaps I'll give it a shot and try to bribe him!

Vitaly

Hehe.

RegDwight

22:49

Who the hell is RegDwightl? I am not from Bavaria!

Vitaly

@RegDwight “l” as in short for “lozenge”?

Lozenge

A lozenge (◊), often referred to as a diamond, is a form of rhombus. The definition of lozenge is not strictly fixed, and it is sometimes used simply as a synonym (from the French losange) for rhombus. Most often, though, lozenge refers to a thin rhombus—a rhombus with acute angles of 45°. The lozenge shape is often used in parquetry and as decoration on ceramics, silverware and textiles. It also features in heraldry. Glyph The lozenge glyph is found in DOS code page 437 (at character code 4) and Mac-Roman. It is found in the Unicode Geometrical Shapes block as . The LaTeX comman...

RegDwight

How's that a shortening?

Thank you kind sir, I know what a lozenge is. :P

Vitaly

You are quite welcome.

RegDwight

Anyhow, I like the sound of "RegDwightl".

I think I might even change my handle...

A RegDwightl in a dirndl...

Vitaly

Then you will be a RegDwightll.

Unless you get rid of the lozenge.

RegDwight

22:53

I don't subscribe to your crazy Russian school of abbreviations.)))

In fact, I think I should go the whole nine yards and re-name myself as Dirndl.

Far too many people keep misspelling RegDwight. Nobody would ever misspell Dirndl.

google.com/search?q=reddwight+site%3Aenglish.stackexchange.com

Eugene

Hello everyone!

Vitaly

Hello @Eugene

Eugene

Everyon who doesn't sleep at that hour. :)

Just came to drop by and say hi! I'm new to this site.

RegDwight

Well, it's quite late in Tallinn, actually.

3 a.m.?

No, 2.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…