meta user
network profile
| bio | website | facebook.com/thenonsequitur |
|---|---|---|
| location | New York, NY | |
| age | 29 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | 2 days ago | |
| stats | profile views | 42 |
puts 10.downto(1).each{ |i| puts i }
puts 'Blast off!'
puts (10.downto(1).map{ |i| i.to_s } + ['Blast Off!']).join("\n")
(1..10).to_a.reverse.each{ |i| puts i }
puts 'Blast off!'
|
Mar 29 |
comment |
Quintessential vs essential? Where do you see these being used interchangeably? They have quite different menaings. |
|
Mar 29 |
comment |
Racial connotations of the word “uppity” @donothingsuccessfully, but a broader social context is exactly what this answer needed to be complete! |
|
Mar 22 |
comment |
Is an “acronoun” a real concept? Not sure if this is technically a dupe (someone more familiar with ELU can probably decide), but the accepted answer here does answer your question, I think: english.stackexchange.com/questions/29374/pronouncing-acronyms |
|
Mar 22 |
comment |
Which is correct: “I loaned him some money” or “ I lent him some money”? Since it died out in BrE and then came back from AmE, you could almost say in BrE that it is a "loanword" from AmE... |
|
Mar 15 |
revised |
What does “Sleep through the Second Coming” mean? added 105 characters in body |
|
Mar 15 |
answered | What does “Sleep through the Second Coming” mean? |
|
Mar 15 |
comment |
What does “Sleep through the Second Coming” mean? -1 "For someone to sleep through such a big deal gives an idea of their character, that they are 'blissfully unaware' of major things". This inference is completely unjustified. The phrase simply means she is a very sound sleeper, especially juxtaposed with his own light sleeping (wakes at the flutter of a curtain). It implies nothing about her general character. |
|
Mar 3 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Mar 1 |
answered | Present participle vs. past participle |
|
Mar 1 |
comment |
Why don't “-use” verb-noun pairs obey initial stress derivation? Sounds like this might be a question for Linguistics SE, this difference probably does have phonological origins. |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
“All you have to do is read” vs. “All you have to do is to read” And in fact from a cursory examination of the Google search you linked to, it seems like most of those results are indeed immediately followed by the words "have to" (or the word "is" ends a phrase and "you" starts a following instruction set, which is a different kind of construction altogether). Similarly, Mr. Wright said "all you have to do is you just have to ask them to" -- he did not say "all you have to do is you just ask them to". |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
“All you have to do is read” vs. “All you have to do is to read” Not to beat a dead horse, but I was just thinking about this again and it occurs to me that there is a difference in what you wrote in the last sentence of your answer and what you were defending in the comments here. "What you have to do is you have to X" sounds okay to me, and parses without any problems. On the other hand, "what you have to do is you X" (not "have to X") is what sounds completely wrong to me. |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Which one is correct, “best wishes to you” or “best wishes for you”? I asked a related question recently: english.stackexchange.com/questions/93272/… |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Term for things like “naughty step” where the step is not what is naughty @BillFranke, according to the wikipedia article on "Time Out", "naughty step" is a common phrase in BrE and wouldn't require any inference on part of a BrE reader. Still don't think the previous question title prior to editing was any good--that's not actually what the question in the body atually was. |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
“All you have to do is read” vs. “All you have to do is to read” Yes, I was overstating it, and in fact modified my comment before you responded. Changed it to "semi-intelligible" which is more what I meant to begin with, and I added some additional hedging after too. Suffice it to say, my internal grammar-parser has trouble parsing that. |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
“All you have to do is read” vs. “All you have to do is to read” Agree with nearly everything you said (so +1), but diagree strongly with the last sentence. Leaving in the repeated subject "you" to get "all you have to do is you read a lot" doesn't just sound seriously weird to me, but also only semi-intelligible (I'm a native AmE speaker). Would definitely give me pause if I heard it in the wild, and I'd probably ask for clarification. |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
Is “Just a friendly advice” grammatical? @J.R., completely agree. Just pointing that who/whom was a bad example because there is real linguistic discussion about that (and a lot of linguists have come to the conclusion that using "who" instead of "whom" in places where "whom" is allowed is not ungrammatical, but rather just choosing a marker of register/formality, or just an alternate grammatical style). Any of the things you listed would have made much better examples -- they are all examples of actual errors that are very common. |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
Is “Just a friendly advice” grammatical? (The exception to that general shift from "whom" to "who" is in fixed phrases, e.g. "To whom it may concern") |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
Is “Just a friendly advice” grammatical? @AndyIsbell, I completely disagree with kris's stand here that "a friendly advice" is grammatical, and I also agree with this answer and gave it +1. But I think your "who"/"whom" example is not well-placed. Unlike with "advice", there is a lot of strong linguistic evidence pointing to the fact that "whom" has mostly disappeared from modern Enlgish (at least AmE, not sure about BrE), and that "who" is correct and grammatical in all places where "whom" can be used. Unlike "a friendly advice", using "who" where "whom" used to be required is not a mistake, it's a shift in English language usage. |
|
Feb 11 |
revised |
How should a person holding a foreign military rank be addressed? fixed false reference to Latin language |
