« first day (428 days earlier)      last day (4498 days later) » 

9:04 PM
Why won't groceries buy themselves?
bbl
 
Apr 30 '11 at 16:35, by RegDwight
@PaulCalcraft yeah, sorry, stupid beer just won't buy and carry itself.
 
Taxation inhibits specialization.
 
0
Q: Do English speakers tend to use verbs in passive form?

MeysamIs my understanding true that English speakers tend to use passive instead of active form of verbs? Compare these: Let's do it Let's get it done I will cook it I will get it cooked Starting Getting Started (mostly seen in the beginning of tutorials)

Frankly, this has NARQ written all over it.
 
Hmm, I don't know.
 
"Getting started" ain't even passive.
 
9:19 PM
It is, in a way.
 
And the other two, they use the past participle, but are they passive?
 
In a way.
 
Let's vs. let's, I will vs. I will.
@Cerberus There is no "in a way". We can't allow no "in a way"s on this site.
 
In any case, he may be onto an interesting phenomenon, however faulty his phrasing is.
 
We must use the correct terminology.
 
9:20 PM
@RegDwightѬſ道 Let's go out of our way to interpret his question in a charitable way, then.
 
Okay. How do I go about that?
 
bye everyone. the snowy roads wait for no-one but I will be waiting for those who don't have all-wheel-drive.
 
Bye!
 
Phrasing aside, where is evidence that people do not say "I will cook it"?
 
I'd like to see more evidence too.
 
9:21 PM
"Let's do it" is an extremely popular phrase, too.
 
True.
How about, "how can the use of the past participle + get be explained in these examples, as opposed to a simple active form?".
"In other words, is the reason why this construction is used in these examples an arbitrary historical development, or is there a more specific syntactic/semantic underlying reason?"
Something like that, but preferably even more specific.
 
That's a start, but that's not his question.
 
I'll cook it
 
Actually, the sentences say different things.
"I will cook it" is not remotely the same as "I will get it cooked".
 
What's cooking?
 
9:30 PM
In the second one you are outsourcing the cooking.
In the first one you are doing the cooking.
 
Is that so?
 
It is to me.
 
Perhaps you're right.
 
"Get something cooked" sounds like get it cooked for you. Not by yourself.
In any case I have no idea what is being asked here.
So right now the answer to the question is "No". Perhaps with an addendum that he is wrong about a number of other things as well.
 
I think the OP means more or less what I said above but doesn't know how to say it.
 
9:32 PM
Could be. Or not.
Which is why I'm saying that it's NARQ.
 
@Cerberus I agree with Reg. The latter is more like I'll git'r'done, where I could do it myself or make someone else do it.
Whereas the first is like I'll do it.
 
@aediaλ So you could be the one to do it yourself in "I'll get it cooked"?
 
@JSBᾶngs That perl program was so ugly that I learned something.
 
@Cerberus "Are you going to have it ready by five?" "Yeah, yeah, I'll get it cooked! Stop nagging!"
It kinda depends on context.
 
@aediaλ For me it also depends on the verb.
 
9:35 PM
@aediaλ Ah OK, so then isn't that somewhat interesting?
 
"I'll get it done" does not imply anywhere as much outsourcing as "I'll get it cooked" or "I'll get it driven to my house".
 
@aediaλ Don't get me started. I'm already all wound up about "after noon".
 
In fact with done the default connotation is probably that you'll do it yourself.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 Agreed: I'd say it is possible that you're having someone else do it in the first two examples, but not in the third. So isn't that something that a linguist might find interesting to explain?
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 Hmm, I suppose so. In the last one it makes almost no sense for you to be driving it to your own house.
 
9:37 PM
@Cerberus I am not a linguist. Ask @JSBngs.
 
I'm still not really sure what the question is asking.
 
To me, the question still reads like "do English people really prefer saying 'blue car' over 'yellow flower'?"
 
"How come "I'll get it done" can mean that I will do it myself?"
 
Stop rephrasing already.
 
No!
 
9:39 PM
You are miles away from the original question by now.
 
I'm not so sure about that.
 
Nowhere in his question is he asking what you are asking.
 
The OP says he finds "I'll get it done" unusual in some way, agreed?
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 Yeah, and I don't really understand why they think we say blue cars more in the first place or why blue cars are passive.
 
@Cerberus No.
 
9:40 PM
Then let me read it again.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 Hey you're the one who put in the colourful car flowers.
 
He says "is it right that people say 'I'll get it done' more often than 'I'll do it'." That's all.
 
I disagree.
 
He is not even asking whether they are equivalent in meaning. He assumes that.
 
His title shows that he is trying to find out whether there is some wider phenomenon behind this.
 
9:41 PM
That's another problem. The title is so wishy-washy that it's unanswerable.
 
Yes, it should be edited.
You want me to give it a try?
 
You will have to poll all English speakers, and then poll all speakers of other languages, and then compare the results.
@Cerberus I'd rather say you should ask him in a comment before editing.
Because otherwise you're putting words in his mouth.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 I understand why you dislike the question, and I'd not saying it is well phrased: on the contrary.
@RegDwightѬſ道 OK.
 
I don't really dislike it.
All I'm saying is that it is not clear. Is all.
 
I do not disagree.
 
9:44 PM
And I don't want to wake up tomorrow to ten answers all guessing in different directions.
Because that's what will happen if it is left open as is.
Unclear questions provoke unclear answers.
Which is why I'm saying, close, ask for clarification, let him edit, reopen.
 
I think perhaps whoever invented the term "close" for this website didn't realize how it would sound to new people.
Something like "pending" or "under review" would sound much better.
See my comment, by the way.
0
Q: Do English speakers tend to use verbs in passive form?

MeysamIs my understanding true that English speakers tend to use passive instead of active form of verbs? Compare these: Let's do it Let's get it done I will cook it I will get it cooked Starting Getting Started (mostly seen in the beginning of tutorials)

 
Very nice.
 
Hey @Reg, this question is closed as a dupe of some other question, but the other question is gone.
 
Thanks.
 
@aediaλ I've deleted the dupe as well.
Undeleting the original doesn't seem wise.
 
9:54 PM
Ack, but it has such a good answer!
 
Yay deletions!
 
I tried voting to undelete it, but it didn't work.
 
I'm sure we have other good questions on the passive, and we'll have more flooding in the gates every day.
 
This shows how a bad question can be made worthy by a good answer!
Well, I would never have deleted that question myself.
 
6
Q: Is using passive voice "bad form"

rest_dayWhenever I create a document in Microsoft Word, it complains about a lot of my sentences being in passive voice. But, when I read that sentence aloud, it sounds fine to me. I am not sure if it is just me and will a statement in passive voice sound strange to a native speaker? So, my question is,...

Maybe it could live here?
The answer, that is.
This sounds like the same kind of question as that other one that had the broken dupe link ("When shall I use passive voice?")
 
9:57 PM
Yes, this question is basically identical to the other one, but in a much better form.
 
Change the title to "Is there a tendency for verbs to be used in passive form by English speakers?" :-/
 
@Reg: Is it possible to move that good answer from the deletes passive question to the question Aedia posted above?
With a smattering of topic here, focus there, that answer would be perfect, and far superior to the ones to Aedia's question.
It actually gives good, practical advice, and shows a bit how the passive works at the same time.
 
... sorry was busy kicking off a war.
Let's see. I'll have to undelete this, merge that...
 
No hurry.
 
Oh haha that's an answer by Shinto Sherlock.
 
10:07 PM
I thought so.
Too bad he left.
I think that was before my time.
So happymeals are a lost cause?
 
I'm not crying.
 
I understood he was...controversial, but not why.
 
@Cerberus You mean Kill King. Kill King are a lost cause. Happymeals is what we're firing at instead.
@Cerberus He was very, very rude.
 
Oh, sorry, yes.
@RegDwightѬſ道 Oh, bad, bad.
Silly how people can get all worked up over an internet forum.
 
He disrupted the peace. And not only here, on other sites as well. And it was his choice to ask for account deletion. Nobody forced him.
Now let me spend the stam.
 
10:10 PM
OK. I never questioned anyone's decisions: even if he had to go, it is too bad he isn't using his apparent skill for the good of this site any more.
 
Merge complete.
 
-5
Q: Is there a grammar of the "because" sentence?

Jan HollandIs there a syntax analysis of the "because" sentence? 1: "The sun is yellow" because "it is hot" 2: Because "the sun is hot", "it is yellow".

^ narq
(in case you're wondering, i'm retagging old bad questions, and the really bad ones i bring here for closing)
@RegDwight it has come to my attention that we have all of and , with mostly the same sorts of questions in each one.
merge?
 
merge... or crush?
 
Ugh. Programming-terminology. Never even saw that one.
But technology >> programming.
Biotechnology is not programming.
 
in theory, you could distinguish between all three of these
in practice, they're all pretty much garbage
there's also
 
10:23 PM
Well that one's just rubbish.
Don't we have technical-writing?
That's a use of "technical" I can welcome.
 
Well. Not my loss.
Haha WTF:
-5
Q: Geeks' words for "Thank you" / "Thanks" / "Cheers"

VladHow do IT geeks say thank you, thanks or cheers to each other? Are there any special phrases or ways of expressing appreciation?

That is very technical.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 oh, good, we closed the hell out of that
 
Yeah and now I'm editing the tag out of that.
 
ok, time to log off for a bit
i may start a meta thread on how to kill those stupid tags
 
10:27 PM
@RegDwightѬſ道 Yayy!!
Thanks a bunch.
@MattЭллен Hah!
 
Which do you choose?
 
I...I don't know.
I don't have much of an opinion on tags.
 
In dubio pro deletio.
 
Si dubtas, deleas.
"If you doubt, you should delete."
 
@Cerberus only through correct categorisation can we truly master the questions.
or something
 
10:30 PM
I'd always be scared I had missed something, or that we hadn't been using tags consistently.
 
It's really simple. "In dubio pro deletio" sounds cool. While "in dubio pro keepio" makes you sound like Missy Elliott. Obviously one of those is not an option.
 
(It doesn't sound cool so much as wrong.)
 
Sorry, you know I can't control myself in these matters. Or anywhere, really.
"Pro deletio" is like scratching on a blackboard, like "she likes I".
 
Yeah but someone who thinks that the plural of stamina is staminae's has no business telling me what's right and what's wrong.
 
10:32 PM
But that is a matter of non-standard dialect, to wit, that of the former WMT room.
It is allowed.
 
And "in dubio pro deletio" is a multilingual pun on a legal term.
It is allowed.
 
How is it a pun?
And what is the legal formula this refers to?
 
OMFG
You serious?
 
You know I don't know things.
 
Something like "semper ubi sub ubi"?
 
10:34 PM
I don't know it too
 
The principle of in dubio pro reo (Latin for "when in doubt, for the accused") means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain. It is often used specifically to refer to the rule of interpretation that dictates that when a criminal statute allows more than one interpretation, the one that favours the defendant should be chosen. In German law The principle is not normalized in the German law, but is derived from Article 103(2) GG, Article 6 ECHR, as well as § 261 Code of Criminal Procedure. The principle has constitutional status. Th...
 
Oh, that.
 
Yeah, that. Snark.
 
In dubio pro Matt Ellen.
 
How many sentences do you know that start with "in dubio pro"?
 
10:35 PM
regardless of context
none
 
I, too, am indubitable.
 
@MattЭллен But there is context. Namely, dubio.
 
In any case, I still disapprove, because the case is just wrong without adding anything to the fun.
 
Only pro Matt if in doubt.
 
Or indubited.
 
10:35 PM
I didn't say only!!!
 
If you want to get rid of all context, you should just say Pro Matt and be done.
 
It should be deletione, then.
 
Sorry, talking to Matt, wasn't listening. Can you repeat ab initium?
 
Aaaahhhhhh!
ears explode
 
tutti pro Matt
 
10:37 PM
Assplode. Ass.
 
When will people learn their goddamn cases? grumble
 
Spelling matters in this room.
 
I'll learn them when you teach them to me
 
@Cerberus Oh! Oh! I can answer that! Never!!!
 
oh, or then
 
10:37 PM
But but but!
@MattЭллен Yay!
Pro is followed by the ablative. The ablative of most words that end in -us is -o.
Of words that end in -a, it is -a.
 
pro bo!
 
Of most others, it is something with -e.
 
Ablative ain't even a case. Me, I love me some instrumentalis.
 
It is a case! How dare you.
 
@Cerberus That's Canadian.
 
10:39 PM
The instrumentalis is dead.
 
You are dead. Hell dog.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 What?
I'm not dead.
I'm just with the dead.
 
So what is ablative? Is it some kind of armour?
 
@Cerberus Same difference.
@MattЭллен Same difference.
Anyhow. Instrumentalis is like all over Slavic. All over it.
 
I... am the same difference?
 
10:40 PM
Does it make any difference?
 
I don't know. I think I used to.
 
@MattЭллен The Latin cases: nominative (uses for subjects, like "I, he, she, we, they"); the genitive (used to signify "of", like "the barber's"); the dative, used to signify "to/for": "to the barber"); the accusative (used for objects, like "me, him", etc.); the ablative, used for many things, and after many prepositions.
 
Gen-ref.
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 I don't own any slaves.
@RegDwightѬſ道 If only!
 
@Cerberus Lol wut kind of Cerberus r u???
 
10:43 PM
I know.
The problem is, they all die down here. Try shackling spirits!
 
I have some in a glass right now
 
Good!
Which?
 
@Cerberus so that's everything but ablative :D
 
Not Johnny Walker's?
 
Southern Comfort
 
10:44 PM
Speaking of spirits and glasses... I was going to play Zelda today!
I hate you all for not letting me play the latest Zelda.
 
I felt like some cheap bourbon
 
@MattЭллен Huh?
@RegDwightѬſ道 Is it good?
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 you should have finished you homework earlier
 
@Cerberus I'm only a couple hours into the game. Can't tell yet.
 
@MattЭллен Hmm I don't know it, but good for you.
We apologize.
@RegDwightѬſ道 Hah, OK. And does it play like older Zeldae?
 
Why do I have to fill in my age?
 
@Cerberus Zelda isn't Latin! you can't just pluralise is how you like. ;)
@Cerberus ah, I don't know
 
But but...
 
@Cerberus Like any Zelda game, it has a lot in common with any other Zelda game, but a specific twist that makes it unique.
 
It could be Latin? Then what is it?
 
10:47 PM
Romanes eunt domus!
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 I remember the running boots from the only Zelda I really played, the first one on the Game Boy. Great fun.
 
Mar 7 '11 at 13:18, by Robusto
Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum! Romani ite domum!
 
@Cerberus Nintendoean
 
Bumping against rocks and walls to create entrances!
@MetaEd canes you
 
Zelda is teh awesum. I have played every game in the franchise.
 
10:48 PM
@MattЭллен Hmm I suppose it is.
Oh, I also remember this boss on the SNES that you had to split into two by hitting its centre.
 
@MattЭллен Oh, that guy! He's great.
Hmm I am in dubio now.
 
He makes me laugh :D
 
Me too.
I also like his speed.
 
Jul 1 '11 at 18:32, by RegDwight
Hahaha, I have to pause to inform you that my wife is shouting from the other room, "hey, I remember those reviews, I miss'em!"
Anyway. Should I watch it? I don't wanna spoil the game for myself.
 
10:51 PM
@RegDwightѬſ道 um, probably not
 
So what should I do: 1. go to a bar in my own street where a friend and her colleagues are, but the bar is rather boring; 2. walk fifteen minutes to a sort of party that could be fun, but I won't know until I'm there; 3. nothing.
 
I've not played the game, and don't have a wii
@Cerberus I think 2 sounds good, since coming back should be easy
 
@Cerberus In all three cases you will end up being drunk, though in the first two even more so.
 
@MattЭллен Hmm yes, I suppose so. I can't really leave my friend too quickly, but the party is no problem.
@RegDwightѬſ道 I never drink alone!
 
Very Russian of you.
Anyway! I'm off to playing Zelda. Or at least setting up my Wii at the new place.
 
10:55 PM
@Cerberus 1. could be good if the bar turns into a different bar, depending on the collegues
have fun @RegDwight
 
I never drink alone either. I drink with a bottle of something.
 
@MetaEd excellent choice
 
My most recent poison has been arak.
a.k.a. rakı if you're Turkish.
 
is this on topic?
 
@RegDwightѬſ道 Haha, yes, verrry.
 
10:58 PM
0
Q: Phrasing of "What knowledge is required (at or in?) (a) university?"

SarasIn British English, how should I properly write a sentence like What knowledge is required at university? Basically, I want to ask what knowledge is required for study at a university or in a university, or in university, as appropriate to the sense of being a student at the university.

 
@MattЭллен Yeah, but I don't know these colleagues, and I don't think they will go to a better place.
 
then it's a chance for making new fiends
but I would pick the party
 
I suppose.
Yeah, you're probably right.
 

« first day (428 days earlier)      last day (4498 days later) »