« first day (168 days earlier)      last day (330 days later) » 

6:07 AM
> The achievements tray is where you are notified when you earn reputation, badges and privileges that reward your actions on the site.
I saw that just now before I logged in :-)
7:49 AM
I don't think auxiliary is needed. Would you elaborate it further? — Maulik V ♦ 2 hours ago
Anyone is welcome to inform him why it's needed.
(It comes with -1, which is funny to me.)
And I didn't even downvote his obviously incorrect answer!
8:18 AM
I would have said resulting in wasted water
The transformation from water is wasted to wasted water seems better, as it preserves the adjective-noun relationship.
Whereas water waste, while referring to largely the same thing... there's something different about it. And it inverts the roles. It's not water that's wasted, but waste that is water.
Hi @jimsug.
I would have said resulting in water being wasted.
But unless we get specific instructions, there are multiple ways to fill in the blanks.
Maulik's version doesn't have a finite verb.
8:27 AM
You can say this but the result is not a clause, but a noun phrase. Most of the time, when questions ask students about sentences, they mean clauses. — jimsug 6 mins ago
Would you say it even without a comma?
> The tap is leaking resulting in water being wasted.
It seems like it could work but I don't know.
An awful lot of commas are optional. I would put a comma there, but I think sometimes my intuition for commas is a bit off. I tend to add too many :-)
But I agree with you, it feels like a comma should be there.
Yeah, I think that'd be better.
I think it's required. I don't know. My intuition is that it's at least questionable without the comma.
But with no comma:
> The tap is leaking resulting in wasted water.
Maybe it's not required.
It does seem off to me.
8:30 AM
Also do you think water waste is different to wasted water in some meaningful way?
Maybe because of the juxtaposition of -ing forms?
A: Usage of article with conjunction

CopperKettle The ebb and flow of the tides / are / now understood. I'll introduce some jargon. The ebb and flow is a compound subject that uses the coordinating conjunction and. Compound subjects joined by and are usually treated as plural and consequently need a plural verb: John and Sarah are movin...

@snailboat I think it might even be the "is Ving" thing.
Good day everyone! Hi @snails!
Hey copper.
8:31 AM
Umm. Maybe. I'm not familiar with the former. It sounds like the water produced as a by-product of some chemical or biological process which then needs to be discarded as waste.
> The leaking tap results in wasted water.
I think that's about the only way I can put it that doesn't sound weird, but doesn't have resulting.
Hwody @CopperKettle.
@Arrowfar Hiyas, @Arrowfar!
I thought I was in the other room ;)
< Bad to the bone starts playing>
8:35 AM
Hi various people I did not greet because I was slowly phone typing! :-)
hi snail.
@snailboat The chat should have a "sound message" option like in (on? at?) Facebook. (0:
I would say on
@snailboat thank you!
@CopperKettle I don't follow.
8:40 AM
@Arrowfar You can record a short sound message in Facebook's chat instead of typing by hand.
It's very handy (no pun intended)
Yeah? Hmm I didn't know that.
Again, I think at Facebook suggests you're either physically at the company or working for them in some capacity, while on is the basic preposition for websites/pages (metaphorically surfaces, like sheets of paper)
I think you might be in chat (or in a chat room), though probably on IRC
@CopperKettle Is Saturday a holiday there in Russia?
Here in some companies it is a holiday in others just like any other day.
8:43 AM
So I don't really expect in in your example, but if you said like in/on Facebook chat, I don't think I'd have found anything off about either preposition
Those are just my personal subjective impressions
@Arrowfar Sunday is always a rest day, Saturday is too for many companies and teaching facilities.
I see.
@snailboat Oh, so it's on Facebook's chat? Interesting.
@SeemaBhukar - I guess you can safely cross out are and put is in its stead. Training materials often overlook nuances of meaning, their main purpose is to teach the basics of a language. — CopperKettle 2 mins ago
I think it could be. Feel free to look into actual usage and see what preposition people use before Facebook chat. It's hard for me to do that from my phone.
8:45 AM
My guess is people don't always use the same preposition.
"Up and down the historical route which leads from Baghdad to the heart of Persia the ebb and flow of battle were very marked in 1916." (Google Books)
Oh, interesting! My ear expects was.
Interesting. I usually think of the ebb and flow as one thing.
Me too!
8:49 AM
Was 1916 a time before "the ebb and flow" became a phrase?
Have you checked their Ngram Viewer for ebb and flow was/were? Or maybe COCA or COHA?
@DamkerngT. The book is dated 2013
@snailboat The Ngram does not allow for complex queries like "the ebb and flow * have"
8:50 AM
"The ebb and flow of the battle lines were dutifully recorded in U.S. newspapers, but only the least careful readers could be fooled by these maps' greatly magnified scale: the Somme offensive was making little progress toward liberating ..."
Wait, the typesetting looks rather old!
Here were seems okay I think.
Copyright (c) 1915 by Sir Percy Sykes!
How could someone copyright something in 1915 and write about something in 1916 in the past tense?!
If that example's a one-off, it could be proximity agreement (in this case, a type of error)
If it's more widespread I wouldn't want to call it an error, of course
8:53 AM
@DamkerngT. Maybe the esteemable Sir Sykes was a clairvoyant
iirc Legally Blonde had a post-dated graduation year.
Oh, I see I have been labeled an ardent grammarian! :-)
@snailboat Where?
8:55 AM
Copper Kettle left a comment to that effect.
Ah, it was just a bit of plain unadorned truth. The Sun is yellow, grass is green, Snails is an ardent grammarian.. (0:
ebb and flow * has brings up zero results at COCA
@CopperKettle Hmm... maybe that's because * represents only exactly one word on COCA.
the same holds true for ebb and flow * have - I'm probably not very versed in the way one has to go about it
@DamkerngT. ah. that's sad.
or, like Russians say, печалька (a sadkin; a hypochoristic form)
Oh, that's not exactly how you want to search
9:05 AM
I can't describe it properly without looking at it, but maybe jimsug can explain
He seems to know what's up :-)
I like your explanation of number agreement with compound subjects, Copper!
Thank you! (0:
"Cribbed for you from the interwebs, with greatest care!"
Native speakers aren't always totally consistent when it comes to compound subjects. There's a grey area in some examples where both singular and plural agreement are probably possible.
9:08 AM
In the case of ebb and flow, I don't think we ever think of those two as separate things…
But then he almost made it: The leaking tap resulting the wastage of water. I just pointed out that he needs 'in' and it looks okay to me. Isn't it 'resulting' in the middle there? — Maulik V ♦ 1 min ago
@snailboat nods
What is it that he wants from me?!
@DamkerngT. The whole that question is strange.
I thought it was a typical transformation exercise.
9:11 AM
(or is it "The whole of that question is strange".. or in some other way)
(or "that question is strange throughout")
(or "the very question is strange")
Or simply: That is a strange question.
Just participating :)
Yes.. (0:
9:13 AM
I left a comment explaining it in different terms.
Q: the meaning of " unbreached"

whitecap ‘I hardly minded the pain,’ he says. ‘We have all had, saving you sir, as much if not worse from our fathers.’ ‘True,’ he says. ‘My father beat me as if I were a sheet of metal.’ ‘It was that he laid my flesh bare. And the women looking on. Dame Alice. The young girls. I thought ...

@snailboat Thank you!
@snailboat I don't see it yet.
Maybe the meaning there is unbreeched..
I meant on the other question.
@CopperKettle I guess we'll have more of Wolf Hall coming our way. :)
The problem is that there's no finite verb, so it doesn't work as an independent declarative clause. That means it's not a sentence. Your addition of in is good, though. — snailboat 4 mins ago
@snailboat Ah, I see!
9:17 AM
Speaking of Wolf Hall, has the "spinning in the air" question gotten an answer yet?
@DamkerngT. Spinning in the air?
Oh, sorry; it was "the short spin in the wind".
Did I lose track of something else that needs looking at?
@snailboat I love that ardent attitude!
(speaking of "spinning in the air")
Poor cat!
9:20 AM
That is one lengthy gif. Usually they are very short. Nice one.
yep (0:
I think I've heard about someone's research on toast flipping/landing before. Don't know if this is related to that research.
9:24 AM
Hmm... I still can't make sense of the "spin" in that "short spin in the wind".
Hung by the wrists, perhaps?
I was surprised to learn a few years ago that, to many speakers, all GIFs are animated. That is, they don't call something a GIF just because that's actually its filetype. They use GIF (on the internet, informally and usually in lowercase) to mean 'animated GIF'.
It makes sense that the meaning would shift, but I still found it confusing.
I think GIF's become a good way to deliver a short video clip (without the sound).
Yeah, that seems to be very nearly their sole purpose online these days.
"Mansoor claimed that [the success in Kunduz] [countered Afghan government pronouncements "that the people of Afghanistan are against the Taliban and want to rid them from their country.]"
Is this a relative clause that uses that, I wonder.
Or is it some other type of clause.
It's reported speech, no doubt
9:39 AM
I left a second comment to try to explain what I meant by the first one.
Hi, @Araucaria!
I know jargon like 'finite verb' can be hard to understand sometimes, but it can be really hard to explain everything in the space of a single comment!
My comments are gone now, though, since the answer has been deleted by the owner. @Maulik, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to join our chat :-)
Yeah, @Maulik, come on other! (0:
@snailboat It was very confusing to me. I mean, it was hard to believe that Maulik didn't know what "sentence" is.
9:45 AM
@Copper Your example has a subordinate clause, but it's not a relative clause. It's a declarative content clause, which is another kind of subordinate clause. This one can be optionally marked as subordinate with that.
I'm pretty sure that the OP knows that a sentence needs a verb.
@snailboat I'd forgotten the jargon, but I kinda felt it was not a relative clause. Thank you.
It was from this question:
Q: Mansoor claimed the success in Kunduz countered Afghan government pronouncements -- I don't understand this sentence

Cookie MonsterSource: AP Exclusive: Afghan Taliban leader claims 'victory' in city Example: Mansoor claimed the success in Kunduz countered Afghan government pronouncements "that the people of Afghanistan are against the Taliban and want to rid them from their country. In all honesty, I'm not sure that ...

@CopperKettle I still can't find the sentence in the original!
I guess it must be in the comment section, perhaps way down there.
I ate a cake. → the cake [ that/which/∅ I ate ___ ]
(I was curious because the OP seems to forget to close the quote.)
9:52 AM
Here we have a relative clause. It has a gap in object position, and optionally has either the relative word which (to relate the head noun cake to the gap) or the subordinator that (to mark the clause as subordinate, as the name 'subordinator' indicates)
@snailboat Thank you!
What you find in indirect reported speech is typically a content clause, either declarative or interrogative.
And these typically have no gaps.
Ugh! J.R. converted this answer into a comment!
Only 1. is correct. Without additional context/examples, I can't think of a reason you might think to add 'for' here. — MrTheWalrus 17 hours ago
@MrTheWalrus I hope you will write a new answer soon!
(I'm not sure if "I told you for the third time" is really okay, because of the tense.)
(Hmm... maybe it works in an uncommon context, like retelling what happened.)
10:09 AM
I walked for three miles. I drew pictures for an hour. In these examples, for expresses the duration of an atelic durative situation. The OP's example is iterative, made of three short events, like "I sneezed three times" but "I sneezed for three hours", where the overall situation is treated as durative and is given a duration.
Does "I sneezed for the third time" work? (I'm quite sure that "I sneezed the third time" works.)
Oops, I used quotes and italics inconsistently
Yes, your example is just fine! That's another use of for :-)
" is easier to type on small devices than *!
A-ha! Thanks for the confirmation!
Unfortunately, when explaining why something isn't used, I suppose we have to reject each reason it could be used individually.
10:11 AM
I wasn't sure because it looked like for the X time works better with the perfect.
I'm typing all this on my phone—trying to turn my sleepless headache time into something productive :-)
Hello, @MrTheWalrus!
I can manage a lot of symbols on my phone, but typing IPA is too hard.
I typed that empty set symbol by copying from Wikipedia :-)
On my computer I can get it if I type 'zero' into Japanese input, but my phone doesn't have it.
10:15 AM
@snailboat Oh! That's neat. I always feel clumsy working on small devices.
I guess myself on small devices is like my aunt using her (PC) mouse!
I can't even get it by typing the Japanese word for 'empty set'.
I can type things okay on my phone, at least most of the time, but I really prefer my computer. The more important question is: how well can I describe English grammar without checking any references? :-)
The only books I'd be willing to check right now are the ones in arm's reach, and those are all about Japanese! :-)
BTW, @MrTheWalrus, I only pitched in my guess because no one (FF, CK, and myself too!) seemed to unable to guess where the "for" was from. I'm still not absolutely sure because this error is not something I'm familiar with.
@snailboat I decided to buy the Student's CGEL on Kindle yesterday. :-)
Yay! :-)
10:23 AM
Reading that before CGEL isn't such a bad idea anyway. It's waaay condensed.
You know, its hardcover edition is prohibitively expensive!
in Language Overflow, yesterday, by Damkerng T.
Hardcover from $2,703.23!?
Though maybe read chapters one and two of CGEL before A Student's Introduction to English Grammar
Those two chapters should still be available for free on Cambridge's website
Oh, yes! That's a good idea, too! Thanks for the reminding.
Hardcover edition?
10:27 AM
@snailboat The picture tells all!
I don't know if its hardcover edition really exists.
I'm nonplussed.
You've clicked on the picture link above, right?
Yes :-)
When I saw that, it was so easy to me to decide which edition I should buy! :D
@DamkerngT. You can read SIEG on slideshare ...
But you can't scribble on a computer screen though ...
10:31 AM
Slideshare costs perhaps $9 a month? I think. I'm not sure if it's legit, though.
@DamkerngT. Here. No, it's free. If you had to pay for it it wouldn't be legal!
With complete text! (perhaps OCRed)
Any Latin buffs in here?
I like Latin, but I'm pretty far from buff status.
Hmm... perhaps not complete. -- Not me (@jimsug).
10:33 AM
Oh, there's a user claiming the title Juris Doctorum
which makes no sense to me because my limited understanding of Latin suggests that Doctorum is genitive, but so is Juris.
It'd be like calling oneself of doctor of laws
Jurisprudentiae Doctor?
@CopperKettle Hi @CopperKettle I missed that message somehow .... :)
10:46 AM
We get some questions about passives where I'd say there is no passive equivalent of the passive is very likely to be infelicitous, but the OP is nonetheless expected to come up with a passive version of the sentence, often where an active-passive correspondence has been laid out in a textbook that doesn't align with what I'm used to.
And very often they're about passive sentences, not clauses, which sometimes leaves me unsure what they're supposed to do.
@snailboat Scanning through PEU for our little meta project, I found a lot of fine prints of the usage of the passive.
I think if I attempted to write a description of the passive it would end up being rather unhelpful a lot of the time…
I'm not sure that what I would say about the passive aligns well at all with what folks want to ask here on ELL.
I'm think that we could use a two-viewpoint approach. One from the learners' POV, based on common exercises found in several books for NNSs. Another from the native speaker POV, which is more correct to relevant to real English usage.
10:50 AM
I'm not sure I'm really qualified to write a description in the first place…
The 'native speaker' point of view, what would that be?
(Actually that's what I planned to do, but it's grown into something huge so quickly.)
I think most native speakers of English are incapable of identifying passive clauses in the first place.
@snailboat I've reviewed a lot of books this week. One thing I noticed is that there are two approaches in grammar books when it's about the passive.
I think the more recent grammar books (for native speakers), the passive usually comes late in the book, and it's more about the information delivery.
@DamkerngT. There's a really good question about used to and the passive on that first page of Wendikidd's. With a good comparison it's easier to see why it was hard for the OP ...
... What are the passivisations for the following two sentences: We used to eat it on Saturdays and We intended to eat it on Saturdays.
10:55 AM
@Araucaria This feels like a trap
No, it isn't a trap try it out ..
> It used to be eaten on Saturdays (by us).
It was intended to be eaten on Saturdays (by us).
In PEU, there are several uncommon cases, e.g.
> Nobody thought that she was a spy.
Does "That she was a spy was thought by nobody" work? (Of couse, PEU says it doesn't.)
10:58 AM
@DamkerngT. But the bit about information structure is most important for non-native speakers. Native speakers naturally know when active or passive clauses sound okay, at least if they're listening to their ear and not worrying about consciously satisfying some ill-formed rule…. Non-native speakers can more easily learn how to form the passive than when.
@jimsug OK, so why ain't it (and I know the problem with the meaning that results, but what is it about he grammar) It used to be eaten on Saturdays and It intended to be eaten on Saturdays
I suppose you're asking about the latter example of the pair?
Though I think it's really difficult to turn that sort of knowledge into procedural knowledge
@snailboat Indeed! Still, most grammar books for learners begin with "forms", specifically "verb forms", and the passive usually comes in the first or second chapter.
@jimsug Or maybe whyzitnot It was used to be eaten on Saturdays which is the mistake the OP made ...?
@jimsug Yes, I mean they don't follow the same pattern at all. The OP tried to use the kind of intend pattern with used to and came unstuck. But no one really realised that they were being very logical.
11:00 AM
I haven't checked, but has anyone mentioned anything like this in that meta post?
in Language Overflow, yesterday, by Damkerng T.
Passive voice of the Day:
> a) Many of them didn't accept it.
b) It wasn't accepted by many of them.
Doesn't that change the scope of negation?
Yes! Huddleston (I think) pointed out that a) and b) are not equivalent.
@Araucaria Yes. Well, the confusion arises from the use of used to, yes? That used to is an auxiliary there and isn't passivised in the transformation.
Maybe semi-...
But, even knowing this, I still think that the exercises and exams in many countries still miss this kind of nuance. (For example, That she was a spy was thought by nobody would be a perfect sentence in the passive.)
11:05 AM
Why do you suppose the by nobody example doesn't work, @Damkerng?
(or at least, rarely works)
@DamkerngT. I don't agree with H there then. That sentence seems to be ambiguous to me. With the right information it seems it could come out either way. As an echoic retort the scope of the negation doesn't change I reckon ...
Hello @Araucaria.
@snailboat Swan (PEU 417) says that we can't use clauses as the subjects of passive sentences.
@jimsug Well, it's not syntactically an auxiliary, although I get what you mean. But I'm not sure that's the issue. Consider They seem to eat it on Saturdays
@Arrowfar Hi
11:08 AM
Sorry for being a little clumsy. Switching between two PCs is killing me. My Alt keeps getting stuck.
@Araucaria Hmm... what would be a good explanation why we shouldn't use "It was used to be eaten on Saturdays", then?
@DamkerngT. I think it might be a raising verb and that might be the key there, but I haven't done any homework on it ...
That seems to be mixing up the past habitual semi-modal used to with the be used to idiom
By the way, we all seem to be missing one thing: what do the passive voice exercises in learner's exercises and exams expect? That's important for the learner too, even though it may result in "a different English". Just my opinion, though.
@Araucaria nods -- Thanks for a good lead!
@snailboat Thanks for another good lead!
@Araucaria Right. That makes sense.
@jimsug That's just a guess right now. But I sure feel for that OP, because no one understood why he was getting himself tied up in knots!
11:16 AM
I'm used to going to sleep at ten every night. I've been doing it for months now. ← the other used to
This one appears with be, become, get, etc.
@Araucaria Do we understand? :/
That one's an adjective. They should take out teachers who do comparisons of those and shoot them at dawn (with water pistols).
@jimsug I know I don't!! :/
The question asks for advice on when to use passive voice. IMO, that should be balanced with a general admonishment to avoid passive voice if possible; it's very easy to fall into, and typically very quickly makes your text less lively (yes, "active") and interesting. — G. Ann - SonarSource Team 15 hours ago
It's a little disappointing that people feel this way.
There are very good reasons to use the passive.
@Araucaria I have grammar question. Can we use all these interchangeably?: "I thought you like xyz", "I would have thought you have have liked xyz" and "I would have thought you would like xyz".
11:23 AM
Because I tend to use them interchangeably, well, most often.
@Araucaria I seem to be missing something. Could you paste the link to the "used to" question here?
Good luck with the passive project, if any of you decide to work on it!
I'll leave all the passive discussion to you all :-)
Do we have a passive project?
On ELL I mean.
11:25 AM
Q: Call for Volunteers! In search of a canonical post on "passive voice"

WendiKiddWe get a lot of questions on active and passive voice. The current count is up to 425. 90% of these questions are low-effort homework questions along the lines of: I've been given these sentences and I need to convert them into passive voice. What is the passive voice form of this sentence? (...

@DamkerngT. I'll have alook
@jimsug Ah
@jimsug Couldn't agree more!
I try to finish the chapter "Thematic systems of the clause" in a book by Huddleston, but I haven't gone very far.
Wait, there was something I was going to point out, what was it...
2 hours ago, by snailboat
The problem is that there's no finite verb, so it doesn't work as an independent declarative clause. That means it's not a sentence. Your addition of in is good, though. — snailboat 4 mins ago
In linguistic theory, does sentence = clause?
I mean... I think it does, but I can't remember since it's now been a while since I studied anything other than SFG, in which sentence != clause.
11:33 AM
@jimsug I don't think so.
But a canonical sentence should have at least one clause.
@DamkerngT. It's here.
@Araucaria Thank you!
@DamkerngT. It's just that that notion just seems so strange.
Maybe for learners, that's useful. Maybe.
But it's plain that a clause is a unit of language, and a sentence is a unit of writing.
That is, a sentence starts with <insert some unambiguous definition of how a sentence starts> and ends in a single period.
I think the definition of "sentence" can be more flexible for native speakers, but for learners, especially in writing, I think almost all intermediate learners have a very good idea what "sentence" is.
I was trying to use what I thought was a more technically useful term and then relate it to the term used in the question. They aren't actually equivalent terms, of course…
11:36 AM
Right, okay.
I mean, I assume that these questions mean clause when they say "sentence".
More specific than just 'clause', though.
Well, yeah. In this case.
Lots of clauses are subordinate.
I don't know though. You know how we assume that attempting to explain these distinctions to a learner would be confusing and unhelpful? Or, I don't know, that's the overwhelming sense I get from seeing bits and pieces of learning material.
People usually don't mean 'subordinate clause' if they say sentence. Although in linguistics there are certainly folks that use the terms interchangeably, I don't think that'll be true of most of the learners here on ELL.
11:39 AM
Btw guys what do you think about my question above?
That is, people use sentence = clause, not sentence = subordinate clause…
@snailboat sentence = independent clause perhaps?
@jimsug Actually, I think I do, but wan't sure how to explain it ...
@Araucaria Well, that's always tricky.
@Arrowfar These are technically different. However, they seem to imply different things about the contexts in which they are said.
@jimsug Yes. The way I understand it, "sentence" in English as a L2 needs to have a main clause.
11:43 AM
@jimsug Okay, I see.
I was referring to generative linguists who just use S for Sentence = clause, including for subordinate clauses.
@snailboat Ha, right. I am not one of those.
Hence my uncertainty and confusion.
I'm sorry, I haven't been able to keep up while typing on my phone and I think I typed things that were confusing.
@jimsug Basically it's like this, I reckon. The Subjects of verbs like seem, need, used to aren't actually doing any seeming, used-to-ing, or needing ...
> I looked to eat the cake at the next opportunity.
That's so painful I don't even want to passivise it.
@Araucaria I wonder whether any/all/other verbs can be used in this way?
> He appeared to be eating the cake.
The cake appeared to be being eaten by him.
11:56 AM
@jimsug ... The Subjects of these verbs are really just interpreted as the Subjects of the subordinate clause that occurs after them. And it's the whole subordinate clause situations that is doing the seeming. So we can reconstrue all of those sentences with a dummy it. So he seemed to like her can be construed as It seemed to be the case that he liked her. He used to like her can be construed as It used to be the case that he liked her, and, as you say ...
... He appeared to like her would be It appeared to be the case that he liked her or It appeared that he liked her ...
@jimsug So for some people (e.g. McCawley), sentence = clause, but for others, sentence ≠ clause
I prefer the ≠ version. I think it's less confusing.
@jimsug So when we passivise sentences with these verbs, it's the subordinate clause/verb that needs to be passivised. That's where the real action is happening. The verbs seem, appear, used to, modal verbs and the rest are all kind of "transparent". They can't be passivised (when used with those meanings).
Somehow The cake appeared to be eaten makes perfect sense to me.
(Though They appeared to eat the cake would mean something else.)
@DamkerngT. Like, if you found an empty cake box, only crumbs remaining on the bottom?
12:02 PM
@snailboat Yes! Or partially eaten.
Oh, I think in the "partially eaten" case it might be weird to say that.
(But without any qualifier, I think my default reading would be the whole cake was gone.)
@DamkerngT. It does to me too.
\o all!
12:04 PM
What else is new today?
Back from school?
I liked having exactly 3000 comments. But now I have 2998.
@Arrowfar Yes.
@Arrowfar Erm, the have have sentence isn't grammatical. As for the others, a lot of the time I reckon they could be used interchangeably, but probably not always (but I can't think of examples right now though ...)
@Araucaria okay, thanks Araucaria!
12:08 PM
@Arrowfar What is your second have? O.o
It looks like it was supposed to be would have rather than have have
@Araucaria But um I didn't write have have. I don't follow.
Oh sorry.
A typo.
@jimsug I think all raising verbs would follow that pattern ...
@Arrowfar Ah, let me have another look at that sentence then ...
12:11 PM
Yeah, it was a typo, sorry. I'll write it again:
"I thought you liked xyz", "I would have thought you would have liked xyz" and "I would have thought you would like xyz".
@CopperKettle Thanks for the encouragement :-)
I do try to help, although I don't always succeed
I think I should probably go for now
Why? You can stay :-)
12:16 PM
@snailboat Sleep tight!
@snailboat zz

« first day (168 days earlier)      last day (330 days later) »