« first day (1990 days earlier)      last day (1214 days later) » 

2:04 AM
She's kind of bossy?
 
@Mitch exactly
 
@tchrist Your joke was fine. I just wanted to add a note about something else.
 
termagant
 
@Færd Can you speak Persian?
 
We'd better not do that here, I guess.
 
2:07 AM
Maybe he's 'uxorious'
 
Ah ok ...!
@Mitch not that much but maybe a bit
 
@tchrist Heh
 
If you transcribe into Roman alphabet, we can't use google translate to get an idea of what you are saying
 
@Mitch are you talking to me?
 
Yea
And fard
 
2:09 AM
Ah .. ! Ok I stop writing Persian in here
 
I don't know what this discussion is about.
Should I read the entire thing?
 
@Shafizadeh I think it would be fine as long as it is in the Persian/Arabic alphabet.
Which of course seems weird because then it is hard for nonperson speakers to pronounce
 
@Mitch Would it? The rules here are so relaxed.
 
Yeah, I don't know
 
@Færd What's your job?
 
2:15 AM
Currently, I'm unemployed.
 
I think it'd be ok but I don't know about others.
 
@Færd Haw old are you? (I mean "your age?")
 
I'm 27.
 
Are you male or female?
 
Hah! Male, bro.
 
2:18 AM
Good ...!
 
@Mitch It would alienate other members to talk in a language they don't understand for long.
 
Yeah. So an extended conversation would put people off. But here and there is not bad, we tend to be multilingual
 
@Færd We don't really say "bro" you know.
And he keeps asking that question, but I do not understand why.
 
We do say 'dude'... dude.
 
did
 
Do
Under duress
 
@Færd Nope.
 
How about 'brah'?
 
@tchrist Chick hunting, it may be?
 
Or 'vieux mec'
 
2:26 AM
@tchrist So why do dictionaries have this entry?
 
Or droog
 
@Færd I'm not a redneck.
Let alone an adolescent one.
Which is what it sounds like.
 
Is it redneck? Or surfer dude?
Or stoner?
 
Now that's something dictioanries don't tell you.
Good to know.
 
Dictionaries hardly tell you the tip of the iceberg
 
2:29 AM
It's a mark of slackerism and low education. Probably of being on drugs.
I'm teasing about some of that.
 
Bro!
Oh.
 
But it was fine in that context.
 
hides doobie
 
I wanted it to sound like See how it feels like to be over-intimate? or something like that.
 
The overtones and connotations of bro are like fingernails clawing chalkboards.
@Færd Success!
Seriously, you may well have realized that goal.
 
2:35 AM
:) I'm afraid I couldn't get that across though.
 
Or petting a cat the wrong direction
 
:D
 
Chewing on tinfoil
 
This conversation is good for making you loose weight.
 
2:40 AM
Was it fettered?
 
Bodily weight. Was what fettered?
 
You mean lose not loose. :)
 
Alas.
Thanks.
 
@Færd Using bro like that is not quite as bad as walking up to somebody you don't know and calling them nigga or dear, but it shares much in common with those.
Which, I think, you did understand. :)
 
How about 'pal'?
 
2:43 AM
That irritates too. Almost all of those do.
Pal is like friend: you don't use it on those who are, which means it is a lie.
Addressing someone by something other than their name, if it isn't a very polite sir, is always risky.
 
But how do you address a close friend informally other than by their name?
 
Why would you do so?
Family sometimes is excepted.
Terms of affection or endearment.
@Mitch Hey bud, do you use any of these?
 
I don't know. Sometimes to sound ironic, which I think pal and bro would work then.
 
Well, yes.
But sincere terms of affection are rare, and not for all but the very closest of bonds.
This may simply be cultural.
Almost certainly is.
 
Yes.
May depend on your gender too, and your friend's.
 
2:49 AM
Well, I suppose if you're one of those.
 
Females have more of those terms here, or use them more often.
 
I think it is the same here.
But a father may well use them on his sons until the day he dies.
 
The joy of which I might never actualize.
 
Well, that just brought me to tears. I must go.
 
Good night. :')
 
 
2 hours later…
4:29 AM
[ SmokeDetector ] Bad keyword in answer, pattern-matching website in answer: Is it conceivable that President Obama might use the word "queue"? by qizieballot on english.stackexchange.com
[ SmokeDetector ] Manually reported answer: Is it conceivable that President Obama might use the word "queue"? by qizieballot on english.stackexchange.com
 
 
3 hours later…
7:06 AM
[ SmokeDetector ] Manually reported question: How can something be “set in stone”? by oppobo01 on english.stackexchange.com
 
 
3 hours later…
9:44 AM
[ SmokeDetector ] Offensive answer detected: Does "Who knows" need a question mark? by ola on english.stackexchange.com
 
10:43 AM
Hello
It seems that it does not support this
it looks like that it does not support this
it appears that it does not support this
Which one seems most appropriate in a technical manual.
?
 
11:02 AM
@Noah As of little value as my guess would be, I'd guess appear is the most formal one, and therefore may suit a formal technical manual best. But mind you, there are more friendly technical manuals too.
If it helps, there are 1754 hits for "it appears that" in the academic subcategory of COCA, 1173 for "it seems that", and 1 for "it looks like that" (178 for "it looks like").
 
@Færd
Now I am confused
It's a simple manual that i need to deliver
I am using it looks like
the word that in there seems uncessary. My bad.
 
It's hard to pick the most appropriate way to phrase something without really understanding the context it appears in.
 
How do you want your manual to sound? Friendly? Serious?
 
> This appears to be unsupported.
 
friendly
 
11:13 AM
@snailboat can give you a better answer, but I would go for "it looks like" or "it seems that" then.
 
@Færd Well, I don't think I can really come up with a good answer with the information I've got.
 
@snailboat Lets say you are a sales engineer and need to explain a software tool to a software engineer who is trying to do something with your tool that it doesn't support. Now you have to say this thing is not supported but you are not 100% sure so you come up with something like this: It looks like this feature is not supported at the moment. Your best bet is to use bla bla bla
 
I just added one more possible choice to the list :-)
 
@snailboat That's a better answer than mine.
 
@Noah It looks like this feature is not supported at the moment seems okay. :-)
 
11:25 AM
Hi
I have a question about Harvard referencing
Darby, A 2004, 'Furious Butler quits as governor', Sydney Morning Herald, 10 August, viewed 10 November 2009, <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1092022411039.html>
What does "A" stand for before "2004"
 
11:37 AM
OK
HAHA I was so dumb, it's just first name
hehe I even sent an email to my professor, what an embarrassing moment
 
11:58 AM
Welcome @YoichiOishi :-)
 
12:10 PM
Is this correct?
What bothers you isn't those lovely sentence. Your aunt is kind of bossy and her husband is uxorious. That's a paradox in the natural relationships. What gives you a creepy feeling is seeing that paradox. Sometimes a person has an abnormal feeling against something. Usually a girl doesn't has any sense of power, but your aunt has. That's a abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad. Respect to their feeling and don't care about trivia.
 
it definely sounds non-native to me
 
Too bad ..!
 
what's it suppose to mean?
 
@Shafizadeh Nope!
 
@snailboat ok, thx for your attention
 
12:23 PM
sorry if I sounded mean @Shafizadeh
 
no problem, that's ok :-)
I improve it, now is it correct?
 
but, honestly I can't figure out the meaning :-/
 
What bothers you isn't those lovely sentences. Your aunt is kind of bossy and her husband is uxorious. That's a paradox in the natural relationships. What gives you a creepy feeling is seeing that paradox. Sometimes a person has an abnormal feeling against something. Usually a girl doesn't have any sense of power, but your aunt has. That's a abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad. Respect their feeling and don't care about trivia.
 
You can have a feeling about something, but usually not against something.
You probably want but your aunt does.
You need an before abnormal.
 
ah ok
@snailboat I cannot understand this one
 
12:28 PM
What is but your aunt has supposed to mean?
 
"but your aunt has sense of power"
 
You just wrote doesn't have.
That means you're using have as a lexical verb, not an auxiliary.
Then in the second half of the sentence, you write: but your aunt has a sense of power.
But that ellipsis isn't possible.
If you add the auxiliary do:
> but your aunt does have a sense of power
Now the ellipsis is grammatical.
 
Oh I see
thx
 
Auxiliary verbs allow this kind of ellipsis.
 
got it :-)
 
12:35 PM
Is their relationship the "trivia"? @Shafizadeh
 
Yeah (a bit)
 
Also "Respect their feelings...
 
@skillpatrol Ah ok thx
 
12:49 PM
@Noah Since it's "to do something with your tool that it doesn't support", it is unsupported. If you're "not 100% sure", find out. Technical manuals should provide facts, not opinions.
@Shafizadeh Just a note that "Too bad!" sounds like you're dismissing a comment (skill patrol's?), which probably wasn't your intent.
 
@Lawrence Ah, good point, thx
Is this sentence correct?
So as a person with normal feelings, being offend of some conversions in their relationship would be natural and acceptable.
 
1:24 PM
@tchrist pal, bud, buddy, friend, amigo, I've never used. They sound to me like you described, like you're trying to affirm something that's not actually the case "What? I'm not your pal!"
 
@Mitch A while back someone on SE called me brother in a comment, which I thought was an attempt to be openly hostile, but they said afterwards they were being friendly.
 
I do use 'dude' all the time in writing ... Well not when I'm writing to the queen or in my newspaper editor job.
 
(Never mind that assuming someone is male online is annoying . . . )
 
@snailboat right. It is very ambiguous that way
@snailboat exactly.
Did you see the 'lady and gentlemen' question?
 
Should it be:
 
1:26 PM
Sorta related
 
The original author of x is so-and-so
or
 
@Mitch I did not.
 
The original author of x was so-and-so
?
 
Well, it was true and it is true, presumably?
I don't know. Is the original author still alive?
 
@snailboat Does that make a difference?
 
1:28 PM
@snailboat If it was a non-native or rural speaker, I'd believe it...
 
I'm not sure what the "is"/"was" could be reasonably taken to refer to here.
 
@FaheemMitha Maybe not.
 
I'm not a school teacher or actually know anything but it seems like it should depend on if the author is alive. Is that right?
 
@Cerberus I am under the impression that this user is a native speaker. I don't know any details.
 
I think it depends on what kind of story you're telling. If you say "was", you're focusing on the event in the past, when he wrote the play.
 
1:30 PM
@Mitch Dunno. The "was" in place of "late author", so to speak?
 
If you say "is", you're focusing on the timeless fact of authorship.
So normally you'd use "is".
 
I think I'm focusing on the fact of authorship.
 
@snailboat Hmm.
@FaheemMitha Is the sentence part of a sequence in which you tell the reader somewhat chronologically what happened?
 
@Cerberus It's actually a SE post. One sec.
 
If no, then I'd say it's best considered timeless.
 
1:31 PM
Oh, if you have context to share, that would be great :-)
 
But I think "was" is rarely actually wrong.
 
3
Q: Cron vs systemd timers

Faheem MithaIt was recently pointed out to me that an alternative to cron exists, namely systemd timers. However, I know nothing about systemd or systemd timers. I have only used cron. There is a little discussion in the Arch Wiki. However, I'm looking for a detailed comparison between cron and systemd tim...

The relevant sentence is:
> The original author of cron is Ken Thompson, the creator of Unix.
I'm inclined to stay with is, but it's not clear was is incorrect.
 
I think that is and was are both possible.
 
I think it may be one of those grammatical nitpicks which gladden the hearts of pedants.
In which number I do occasionally count myself...
@snailboat Yes, me too. Shall we take a vote? :-)
 
I think is is better, but was is acceptable.
 
1:35 PM
I like is too.
 
Ok, is it is then. :-)
Thanks, guys.
(Note, I'm using guys in a strictly gender-neutral fashion here.)
 
Sure, I understood it that way.
I hear gender-neutral guys all the time :-)
 
Is Ken Thompson still living?
 
Yes.
 
With reference to your earlier discussion re: dude and brother. Neither which I normally use.
 
1:38 PM
Okay, then is is.
 
@Noah Yes, he's only 73.
 
As long as he is breathing
 
I hope I live to be only 73 someday :-)
 
@FaheemMitha Oh, puh-lease!
 
@snailboat lol
@Cerberus Heh
 
1:40 PM
@snailboat One day. Just make sure you don't get remarried at that age.
 
Well, Noam Chomsky got remarried in his 80s. Dude's an animal.
 
If you don't mind, could you please imagine a question mark appearing over my head?
 
@snailboat Why?
 
Because I'm confused by Noah's message.
And you can't see the physical question mark that manifested itself over my head through the internet, so you'll have to use your imagination.
 
Is it a big one?
 
1:44 PM
It should be "the list of advantages is", right? I wrote "are".
Because list is singular.
 
Yes.
 
@snailboat He's hoping you live to be only 73 one day, I think. But he recommends you don't get remarried at that age.
 
Some "collectives" can take plural verbs, also depending on where you live; but normally they can't.
 
Though I should not speak for him.
@Cerberus Example?
 
The Cabinet disagree.
 
1:45 PM
I can't wait for Newspeak to become the norm. It will make things so much easier.
@Cerberus Ah.
Well, dinner time. Laters.
 
Bye!
@FaheemMitha Blaaaaah!
Adios.
 
@FaheemMitha I understood the words the same way you did. I'm just not sure what the problem with remarrying at 73 is.
Talk to you later, @FaheemMitha!
 
1:59 PM
@Cerberus With "original author", I'd be inclined to go with was because it's stressing the past authorship, not the present status of the same. I can imagine "its original author was X but it has since been revised by Y" - that sounds better than "its original author is X but has ...", even without the "but has ..." part. There may be some objection based on is/was = alive/dead. You can sidestep all that by saying "..., originally authored by Ken Thompson, ...".
 
@Lawrence I presume you mean "but it has"?
I understand your argument.
And I think my "sequence of chronological events" more or less matches it.
You're right that the word original is more likely to be used when such a sequence is described.
 
2:17 PM
@Lawrence Hmm, "originally authored by" sounds good.
 
2:28 PM
Is this correct?
That's an abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad when that feeling get exprres in public.
 
@Cerberus Good catch :) .
 
express *
 
I can point out little grammatical problems. Like, I could say you should use gets expressed (or is expressed) rather than get express.
 
ah .. ok
 
But I think you might benefit from stepping back for a moment and trying to write the whole thing in plainer English.
 
2:34 PM
@Cerberus Yes, it's consistent with your "sequence of chronological events". An individual author doesn't make a sequence, but although @FaheemMitha's quote only specified the "original author", using the word original at least implies subsequent authors or editors.
 
@snailboat I don't know what do you mean "plainer English". This sentence isn't plainer English?
That's an abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad when that feeling is expressed in public.
 
Well, I was thinking of the longer quote you pasted in here earlier.
2 hours ago, by Shafizadeh
What bothers you isn't those lovely sentence. Your aunt is kind of bossy and her husband is uxorious. That's a paradox in the natural relationships. What gives you a creepy feeling is seeing that paradox. Sometimes a person has an abnormal feeling against something. Usually a girl doesn't has any sense of power, but your aunt has. That's a abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad. Respect to their feeling and don't care about trivia.
 
So? All of this ^ is wrong?
 
No, no, no . . .
 
Actually I want to add that new sentence to what you linked
Here is my full-context ..
 
2:38 PM
I mean, there are little grammatical things here and there that need fixing, some of which we already talked about. But I wasn't thinking of "right" versus "wrong" so much as trying to make it read a little easier, make it a little more natural.
 
What bothers you isn't those lovely sentences. I guess your aunt is kind of bossy and her husband is uxorious. That's a paradox in the natural relationships. What gives you a creepy feeling is seeing that paradox.
Sometimes a person has an abnormal feeling about something. Usually a girl doesn't have any sense of power, but your aunt does. That's an abnormal feeling which makes the rest of normal people sad or even mad when that feeling is expressed in public. So as a person with normal feelings, being offend of some conversions in their relationship would be natural and acceptable.
@snailboat Ah ok... so you are telling my text is correct but not perfect!
 
crl
2:52 PM
what's the difference between a well-dressed man on a bike and a poorly dressed man on a unicycle?
 
With reference to the following post, I'd like to say that "Hello, world!" is a sentence. The main objection is that with no verb or predicate, it doesn't qualify as a sentence. Hello is considered an exclamation. RegDwigнt's comment comes closest, but doesn't actually define sentence. Any thoughts?
(I'm asking how to formally parse "Hello, world!" as a sentence.)
0
Q: Is "Hello, World!" a sentence?

BerndGitI proposed a programming puzzle, where the question is to generate gramatically correct sentence with the shortest program (see: [http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/78138/linguistic-code-golf][1]). One suggested solution was "Hello, World!", this is an standard output at a special langu...

 
crl
of course it is
a sentence can be one word long
 
@crl Yes, of course. But according to what definition of sentence?
 
crl
ah, damn, no verb, hmm

> A sentence is a group of words that makes complete sense, contains a main verb, and begins with a capital letter. Sentences are used:
 
@crl Exactly :) .
 
crl
2:58 PM
Hoy lo aprendo
guys, don't forget my joke ^
 
@Lawrence Then I think we are agreed in principle.
 
"Hello, world!" is of the same construction as, say, "Hey, you!": interjection + noun. I considered ellipsis "(I offer a) hello, World", or hello as sort of a performative verb, but neither is quite satisfying.
@Cerberus No objection :) .
 
Yay.
@Lawrence Interjection + noun.
I'm not sure about ellipsis as the historical origin of the construction.
Maybe.
 
@Cerberus Fair enough, going back to edit. Just made the edit window. :)
 
crl
what is the longest grammatically correct sequence of words you could find without a verb? (in English)
 
3:03 PM
@crl An infinitely long noun phrase?
Also known as a British newspaper headline.
 
crl
hehe
 
@Cerberus Etymology-wise, it's arguably a verb in that sentence.
 
crl
@crl attire
 
@crl Haha. Good one.
@crl Um, no comprende. "Hello to open?"
@crl Start with "Hello, famous visitor!", then add more adjectives. After that, add "and guest", then insert more adjectives. You can keep greeting as many people as you like this way.
 
3:11 PM
@crl Ah. Indeed. Me, too. :)
 
crl
@Lawrence yes, or a description of photo, :)
 
@crl Well, the photo already counts as a thousand words, for an appropriate definition of count. :)
 
crl
or a chat room description. hehe right ^ an image is worth that
 
@crl Actually, they all need some kind of predicate, producing, e.g. "This is (thousand-word description)". Even the "Hello, famous visitor!" sentence has "Hello" perform that function.
 
crl
Someone should write a book without verbs
 
3:17 PM
@Lawrence Hello doesn't predicate on anything.
 
@snailboat Yes, that's the problem. Here's the start of this discussion.
 
Ah.
It's a minor sentence.
 
looking up definition of minor sentence
@snailboat This equates minor sentence with sentence fragment. So would you say that it's not formally a sentence?
 
crl
See. < shortest sentence?
 
@crl How do I access that reference?
 
crl
3:22 PM
Go.
(nah, was just looking at the shortest sentence possible)
 
@crl Oh, I see what you mean. It doesn't explain why "See." or "Go." is formally a sentence, though. I think one of the analyses considered "Go." to be a shortened version of a longer command.
 
@Lawrence Fowler is the best!
It does look like an ancient verb.
 
Go works as a complete sentence (meaning a major sentence, not a minor sentence) because second-person subjects in imperatives can be omitted, and usually are. You go.
@Lawrence I don't think sentence fragment and minor sentence are quite the same thing.
 
@Cerberus In this reference, it looks like an exclamation to me.
@snailboat Yes, you're right. It's an implied noun + the explicit verb.
 
The term sentence fragment suggests that it's part of a larger sentence, but something has been left out, don't you think? Like: "You have two cars?" "No, I have three cars."
But a minor sentence is a string that works as a complete utterance but doesn't fit any of the major clause types.
 
crl
3:34 PM
"Who did that?" "I did" so technically one char sentence
 
So when you use Welcome! as a one-word performative utterance, is it elliptical? Well, you could try to come up with a way to analyze it that way, or you could just say it's a type of minor sentence.
But there are some complete utterances that can't be explained by ellipsis, no matter how hard you try.
> What about you?
 
@snailboat I'd agree, but would like an established reference I can link to when posting an answer. This is another write-up about minor sentences, but it also seems to carry the 'incomplete sentence' idea.
 
Okay, sure.
You might look at A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al. 1985), starting on page 838. The section title is 'Irregular sentences'.
In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum 2002), the section 'Minor clause types' starts on page 944.
 
@snailboat Linguistically, why aren't exclamations considered (full) sentences? I understand the standard 'no verb' explanation, but it doesn't seem to match what sentence normally means in common usage. 'Minor sentence' captures the sentiment well.
 
A major sentence has at least one major clause.
A major clause has the form of one of the major clause types, which are at least declarative, interrogative, and imperative, and probably exclamative as well.
 
3:41 PM
@snailboat Thanks. I don't have these handy, but do they consider minor/irregular sentences to be sentences? (The naming seems to bear that out - they are xyz sentences, so they are sentences. But I suppose English doesn't always pattern-match that way.)
 
Well, you can divide utterances further into minor sentences and non-sentences, if you want.
I don't know that there's really a standard view on how to classify sentences that don't fit one of the major clause types, even if just elliptically.
 
@snailboat Just wondering - are exclamations like "Hello" explicitly excluded from the exclamatory sentence type?
 
@Lawrence Yeah. An exclamative clause looks like this: What a disaster it was!
Hello is an interjection.
It's a complete utterance on its own, but you might not want to consider it a sentence on its own. Depends on how you want to define sentence, I guess.
 
@snailboat Ok. Thanks for the discussion. My conclusion is that "Hello, world!" is commonly treated as a sentence. It can be considered a minor sentence linguistically. For it to be treated as a formal sentence (noun + predicate definition) would require interjections to be considered as predicates, which they aren't.
@snailboat Yes, that takes us full circle :) .
 
David Crystal's A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics doesn't have a separate entry for minor sentence, but it does talk about them in the entries for sentence and minor.
His definition includes utterances like Yes, Please, and How do you do? as minor sentences.
 
3:49 PM
looking it up
 
But Quirk et al. 1985 would classify some utterances like Yes instead as non-sentences.
So definitions vary, I believe.
(Heck, in Syntactic Phenomena, McCawley uses sentence as a synonym for clause!)
 
@snailboat Thanks! I'd prefer something based more strongly on linguistic theory, but the traditional 'complete thought' definition would do for this :) .
@snailboat I suppose it's hard to pin down something that is used in various ways. Starting with a description and ending up with a definition can lead to instances that fit the description falling outside the formal definition.
 
4:06 PM
Evening :)
 
@crl or at least a very short story
Probably has been done
@crl or at least a very short story
There are novels without the letter 'e'
 
@Lawrence I don't know that the sentence is a really important unit linguistically. The clause is a much more natural unit to discuss a lot of the time.
 
@snailboat Fair enough. It's important for the OP in this case, though. I've credited you in my answer to their question. Thanks again!
 
@Lawrence But one that was (or is?) originally a verb, right?
 
@Cerberus Yes, I'd agree that "Hello" is an exclamation that was (originally) derived from a verb.
 
4:20 PM
OK.
 
@Cerberus Here's the reference to the etymology with the suggested derivation from holla!, meaning "stop, cease" (which are clearly verbs).
 
You had already posted that link!
 
@Cerberus Yes :) . I wanted to quote the "stop, cease" part. Besides, it's simpler to link again than to refer to an earlier part of the chat :) .
Thanks everyone! TTFN
 
TTFN?
 
@Cerberus Ta-ta for now!
 
4:35 PM
Ahh.
 

« first day (1990 days earlier)      last day (1214 days later) »