Language Overflow - 2016-08-18 (page 2 of 2)

« first day (426 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2821 days later) »

3:12 PM

Word of the Day: altercation

(It's in the breaking news.)

3:25 PM

> A student in Perm arrested for impersonating Jesus

gordonua.com/news/worldnews/…

The only good news today is the maiden flight of the world's largest airship

Hi.

3:39 PM

Who is Cat? (Catija is a mod aleardy)

Evening, @V.V.!

@V.V. Hi V.V

It's + 27, and God it's nice!

It was + 33 a couple of hours back

> I used to hate the number 27
In centigrade, I mean
But now it feels like heaven

> (To get to real heaven,
Decrease that by 11)

@CowperKettle Ah, that would be too cold bro

:D

(0:

3:48 PM

It's 31 C here

Local Time 8:18 Pm

4:28 PM

0

Q: Can I use "Me too" like subject?

Can I use "Me too" like subject in an answer? Here are some examples: I am Italian. Me too am Italian. Can I do this?

:)

4:42 PM

1

Q: What does "the bottom fell out of the economy" mean?

This development, coming as it did when the bottom had fallen out of the European economy, provided an impetus to a long-held desire to secure direct relations with the East by establishing a sea trade. What does the bottom had fallen out of the European economy mean? And what does did in ...

idiom-meaning reference

1 hour later…

6:08 PM

0

A: can the second I be omitted in the sentence? I thought that I can't do it alone, but he convinced me that i should at least try

Yes, you can. It's correct, you should not repeat it. Generally, if you use a noun/pronoun in a compound sentence, you don't need to use it again unless the noun in subject changes. I would say the better way is: I thought that can't do it alone ... You can repeat it but you don't need it.

No @Mat. I'm 95% sure you're wrong.

0

A: can the second I be omitted in the sentence? I thought that I can't do it alone, but he convinced me that i should at least try

First, since 'thought' is past tense, you must have agreement with 'can't'. I've changed the sentence as follows: I thought that I couldn't do it alone. Removing the second I will invariably change the meaning. At the moment the sentence means that you in particular cannot do this task. Ma...

Really? Is the version with "can" really ungrammatical?

@DEAD Yes, this guy answers questions without enough care !

Hi DEAD

Hey

@DEAD Good question

Sounds that "code" has been mentioned somewhere in the text. Am I right? If so, isn't there any explanation for this "code"? — Cardinal 1 min ago

6:33 PM

@CowperKettle Bringing a ... online.

Bringing a @Jim online?

@DEAD No, it's wrong... but I don't know how to explain why.

Also, "can't" is wrong... It should be "couldn't".

<searching insult databanks>

@Catija So you're saying there must be backshifting?

@Catija It's wrong because there is no coordination happening.

@DEAD I just responded to your comment on the other answer.

6:37 PM

Hmm.... I think couldn't is certainly more standard and common, but I'm not sure we can say can't is ungrammatical.

@Catija Hey

It certainly sounds really, really odd with "can't".

@Catija Yay

@Catija Yah, but it might just fit in @Dam's marginal basket.

@Catija Why "I thought can't be" is wrong?

It also might not be ungrammatical, but semantically weird.

6:39 PM

I agree with odd, and maybe one really! :-)

@Mattew Ask @JimReynolds I suck at explaining grammar rules because I don't know them... I just know when something is wrong. :P

Can't I say "I think am good"?

@Mattew No.

@Catija Oh ok. Are you native?

Yes.

6:40 PM

@Mattew You cannot omit the subject. There is no coordination in the two clauses.

@Mattew No.

@DEAD Why weird ?

I thought "I think am good" = "I think I am good"

I wasn't hinting at your proposition.

You say he meant his disability continues up to now ?

@Mattew Nope. Doesn't work that way.

6:41 PM

@Mattew No, you can't do that because the subject isn't coordinated.

@Catija Ok sorry.

Tense consistency is an interesting topic

But we can say I thought that I can sing, but he convinced me that I can't.

@DEAD Ahh, my baskets!

@JimReynolds is praying for a escalating discussion.

:D

6:43 PM

@Cardinal LOL

@DamkerngT. (ﾉ＾◡＾)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

@JimReynolds Are you a native like Catija?

Naw

Ok.

More native than @Catija!

6:43 PM

@Mattew Yes, but he's currently trying to forget English

@JimReynolds What?

@DEAD AHAHAHA

I was also American in my past life. She was Lithuanian.

XD

Come on XD

We usually say couldn't in that sentence.

Comes on

@JimReynolds it's always the edge cases, innit

6:45 PM

Can't doesn't sound natural, but I think people do say it.

@JimReynolds Have you any site to learn English Grammar?

You mean do you have?

Yes

Jims do not say have you

I think It's the same "Have you" and "Do you have"?

6:47 PM

Have you any is ok, too.

@Cardinal I'm not him.

Sure :D

Have you any is more formal.

@JimReynolds any is for question and negative phrases.

I meant do you have is more common in AmE

6:48 PM

some is to affirmative just.

@Cardinal Ha

@JimReynolds Do you speak other languages than English?

Jims == American People

@Mattew Note that this doesn't mean "some" can't appear in negative statements.

Nein

6:49 PM

@JimReynolds Ok.

@JimReynolds Clearly, Jim likes to be enigmatic and confusing.

Jim also speaks Martian.

@DEAD What?

My book doesn't approve.

@DEAD Anyway, I'm not Iranian. I was kidding.

@Mattew Of course it doesn't. Learner books are like that.

@Mattew Shrug

@DEAD :(

I'm Italian.

6:51 PM

@Catija If I'm clear, everyone can see that I don't know nothing.

Unless you end up being my neighbor, your nationality neither hurts nor wins me anything @Mat.

@DEAD Can you commit my proposal in Area 51?

What is it about?

@DEAD so?

@DEAD :D

6:51 PM

1

Proposed Q&A site for this is a site for translator, curios and everyone wants learn more about translating world in every forms.

Currently in definition.

@Mattew Oh my. I'm not sure that site would work unfortunately.

Let it play for a few days though.

Why?

@DEAD I need to find some users.

Well, me being the boring meta'er I am, I foresee people coming to the site and dumping their whole essays to be translated.

No.

@DEAD I don't think that's the point of the site... though, I'll admit that it's been suggested before.

6:53 PM

I will do some rules..

Catija: It's wrong. Jim: It's quite unnatural, odd, nonstandard, unfelicitous, but I'm lacking confidence in the philosophical sense, that we can authoratively declare it not correct.

Like "You can ask question about how to translate some words correctly or some sentences", how to translate words particular and so on.

SE sites are versatile to a degree, but you can't make them anything you want.

@JimReynolds :D

BRB

6:55 PM

@JimReynolds Though, you'll note that I was more hedgy in my comment on the site...

@DEAD It's pretty odd sounding to me with "can't"... You could certainly use a direct quote to use "can't"... I thought, "I can't do this alone"... — Catija 19 mins ago

Oh, I never read the sources. I just give opinions.

I'd like a @snailplane comment on that issue.

(I thought that I can't do it alone.)

7 mins ago, by DEAD

@Mattew Oh my. I'm not sure that site would work unfortunately.

Hmm, a similar case would be "I'm not sure that site will/would work unfortunately."

Actually, I now rule it grammatical. It means something different than couldn't. I used to think I can't, but now I know I can.

@DEAD What about using a definite article before "site"

Obama: Yes we couldn't!

7:02 PM

@Cardinal Well, that's irrelevant and doesn't render the sentence any more (un)grammatical.

Any (un)more grammatical

@JimReynolds I'd still use "couldn't" there, personally.

Unany more grammatical

... unless it was a direct quote... "I used to think, "I can't"... but now I know I can!

"That" defines "site" well enough @Card.

7:05 PM

@DEAD Or, the double that... "I'm not sure that that site will work, unfortunately."

Again irrelevant. Omission of the relative pronoun is allowed. (/¯◡ ‿ ◡)/¯ ~ ┻━┻

@DEAD That that is a reporting that I think

> I'm not sure (that) that site would work unfortunately ?

Oh. That that that!

:D

@Cardinal WTH is a "reporting that"?

7:08 PM

I'm sure that that that is fine in that.

ALL THE THATS!!!!

@DEAD It is a that living in a reporting clause

reports @DEAD as a crime against human intelligence.

:D

@JimReynolds He's human? I thought he was a chemical molecule...

7:10 PM

@Cardinal Is this pseudo-grammar? There are no such types of clause that I know of.

@DEAD Yes, of course

@Catija Excuse @Jim's eyes. He's a bit old.

Hides

@Cardinal So if it's pseudo-grammar it's nothing different from "I'm not sure that site would work".

I concocted it couple of minutes ago to distinguish the first that in:
I'm not sure (that) that site would work unfortunately

Don't make up distinctions when there aren't any.

The relative pronoun is optional, and this is a subordinate clause.

Don't ask me... I don't even know what a "relative pronoun" is.

7:12 PM

where that who whom whose

@Catija Sure you do. You just don't know the labels.

... Sometimes I wonder what idiots gave me so much rep on this site, considering my lack of terminology knowledge.

@DEAD Oh, fine... be pedantic about it.

Well, here's one of those idiots: ell.stackexchange.com/users/14111/dead

@DEAD Can you speak Azeris ?

What is your current chemical, anyway?

7:15 PM

I assure you I can speak my mother language @Card. :)

@Catija diethyl azodicarboxylate

@Catija lol

I didn't want to refer to your ethnicity

@DEAD I'm 29.

They format it differently on Wikipedia.

@JimReynolds Uh, a typo there.

@Catija It's the same molecule, but the trans- isomer.

Meaning my longer chains are both at one end of the nitrogens, while the trans-DEAD is long chains on two opposite ends.

7:19 PM

@DEAD Oops. 29^2.

@JimReynolds Still a typo.

> DEAD is toxic, shock and light sensitive; it can violently explode when its undiluted form is heated above 100 °C.

Eeep... sounds like scary stuff.

@DEAD Well, he's probably somewhere between the two, anyway :D

If you want to know my age, you'll need to cut me in half and count the rings.

300,000

@JimReynolds I think that does work only in the case of @Araucaria

Totally irrelevant to meaning. With human head nouns, it is a free between wh-relatives and that-relatives: "the person who did it" and "the person that did it" show no semantic or syntactic differences. — BillJ 10 mins ago

Long time ago, I read that using "that" is more formal

Is that right?

7:24 PM

I don't think so.

Hi @JLund

I think the opposite, if there's really a difference

@Cardinal If anything, I'd say the opposite...

Hi Cardinal

Hi Cardinal

7:25 PM

nods

@JimReynolds Low Ordinal

Haha

Cardinal can joke in English.

And his English is a joke.

It's fun to be funny.

Oh those guys

Common I just forgot those nightmares

Hullo @JLu! Welcome to chat.

I cound't make more funny Jokes, though

You don't make jokes. Jokes come to you.

Like @JimR.

@Jims could you please, for God's sake, do something to that username so I don't ping you and the other @Jim while pinging @Jim?

7:34 PM

@DEAD Who's the other Jim?

JimR

"The Master Native"

0

Q: A phrasal verb to say "Go to airport"

Is there a phrasal verb to express "Go to airport"? Can I use "Get the airport"? What I can use else?

phrase-request phrasal-verbs

:D

How is "Get the airport" a phrasal verb?

8:06 PM

> there was nothing she would not rather do than ask for money.

Interesting.

3 hours later…

Anonymous

10:47 PM

@DEAD Well, it's a verb phrase, at least :-) Kind of a nonsensical one in most contexts.

Anonymous

I don't really know what the OP wants. You could post "no" as an answer, but since I'm not clear on what they want…

« first day (426 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2821 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '1618

Language Overflow

This is the main chat room for ell.stackexchange.com. Welcome!

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile