meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Murphys, CA | |
| age | 43 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 10 months |
| seen | Jun 15 at 11:54 | |
| stats | profile views | 407 |
I am OpenCoin's Chief Cryptographer and one of the architects of the Ripple payment system.
I live in California's Gold Country, east of Sacramento.
Bitcoin: 1Gonhezk1ScHaFqUSYH9VQThaDS4PJSq1o
|
Aug 26 |
comment |
What is a toit? All I know about toits is that they are always around and people are always trying to get them. |
|
Aug 26 |
answered | When should I use “is”, and when “does”? |
|
Aug 26 |
answered | “The one who wants” vs. “the one who want” |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective @Karl let us continue this discussion in chat |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective If "utter" can only be used attributively, then "the devastation was utter" must be either invalid or an attributive use. Yet you can easily find uses like this that all seem perfectly fine (punch "devastation was utter", in quotes, into Google). So either that usage is attributive or "utter" is not exclusively attributive. (Or, what is in fact that case, words that are "exclusively attributive" are not really exclusively so. They can all be used in a parallel construct that is not technically attributive but merely implicitly/semantically so.) |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective You're saying you don't think "The devastation was utter." is grammatically valid? Or you don't think it's attributive? If the former, I don't know what to say. If the latter, my point is that any word, even one that's attributive only can be used that way. "Utter" is attributive only and can be used that way. So is "outright". "He showed outright contempt." "The contempt he showed was outright." |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective Sorry, bad example. The word "utter" (in the sense of 'total' or 'complete') is claimed to be solely attributive. But you can certainly say, "The devastation was utter." If you can say "utter devastation" (attributive) you can say "devastation was utter". If you can say "potential client" you can say the client was "merely potential". |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective I agree, "potential" can only be attributive. But it is attributive in my example. It is a mistake to think an attributive adjective must always appear directly before the thing it modifies. "He's someone very interesting." Here, 'interesting' is attributive, but it's preceded by "very" and not followed by anything. Your best argument though is that many other attributive words cannot be used in the this way. For example, "utter" and "outright" cannot be intensified. |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective Well, it seems fine to me. It is a perfect parallel to structures like: "It's a blue ball." "Yes, very blue." It means that the ball is more blue than you would expect the typical object described as a "blue ball" to be. I'm not sure what tells you that it's wrong, but there's nothing wrong with it. If a potential client is "very potential", that means they are more potential (and thus, less actual) than the typical potential client would be. |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective I agree. The potential must always be for or to be something. The issue is whether you have to explicitly state what the potential is for or to be. |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
'Potential' as an adjective It is correct say the client is "very potential" to mean that the client is more potential (less firm) than typical potential clients. If you think it's not proper, what rule do you think it violates? This is the general way you use "very" to amplify an adjective. "He's a smart guy." "Yes, very smart." "He's just a potential client." "Yes, very potential." (More potential, that is, less close to being realized, than most potential clients.) |
|
Aug 25 |
answered | “In 15 minutes” or “15 minutes later”? |
|
Aug 25 |
answered | 'Potential' as an adjective |
|
Aug 24 |
comment |
What does “double-down” mean when used in a context other than Blackjack? It means roughly the same thing it means in Blackjack, risking more in the hopes of getting a big win. |
|
Aug 23 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Aug 23 |
comment |
Why “job” in “nut job” I think you're correct. 'Bank job' is like 'some piece of work'. |
|
Aug 23 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Aug 23 |
comment |
What's the origin of the common phrase “I call shenanigans”? I believe there's a connection to the card game politely known as "I doubt it". |
|
Aug 23 |
comment |
Why “job” in “nut job” That's some piece of work you got there. |
|
Aug 23 |
answered | Why “job” in “nut job” |
