With the power of lazy photoshoping, I may have created the best game ever!

HyvelTjuven · 9 days

Untitled.jpg

Untitled (2).pdf

New Document.doc

a.html

fwb · 10 days

When I noticed that I said, whoa.

Atyka · 17 days

Once you get your bearings, I really like this reference for providing some simple tricks and diversifying your understanding. It probably won't be useful until you get a ways into it though.

lawpoop · 20 days

In the usages you give, it is a discourse marker. I really like Michael Swan's description on the Wikipedia page:

[A discourse marker is] a word or expression which shows the connection between what is being said and the wider context.

I tend to use this form of "now" to either identify a central point within a discussion, or to concede a point in an argument (similar to how you describe it - "making it less blunt". You may want to look into hedging for more on these kinds of expressions.). I've also heard people simply use it as a filler, like "umm" or "well".

HomoMalus · 21 days

Yeah supposedly he was using "ð" for [pʰ] and "þ" for [tʰ], but I heard them all the same way you did. Of course as a naive English speaker I'm terrible at differentiating aspirated and unaspirated consonants intuitively.

MYxLITTLExPWNY · 21 days

"Boss" was slang in the 60's if I remember correctly, so a lot of older folks should be familiar with it. Not sure if it had precisely the same meaning though...I was under the impression it was more like "sweet," "sick" etc.

If you're in the US and you want to be really old-timey, I would say just compare them to Teddy Roosevelt. That has a pretty clear connotation of badass. ;)

afrokid251 · 21 days

I think this was an old uncyclopedia thing, but a gungungun is obviously superior: it shoots a gungun at your enemy. They pick it up and think they can shoot you, bu their gungun just gives you a regular gun. Then you can kill them with an ordinary bullet, dashing their momentary hopes.

secaedelcielo · 22 days

What is this structure called?

In my intro grammar class, we called these kinds of verbs "complex transitives", but that term isn't really well-defined in formal linguistics, as far as I know.

Phrases consisting of a pair of equated items with an implied, but absent copula are often called "small clauses". (e.g. "you happy" is a small clause—it's missing the copula "to be") We then say that the verb "subcategorizes" for a small clause. That is, it takes a small clause as its complement, rather than another kind of phrase, like the noun phrase complement in "I want chocolate cake."

secaedelcielo · 22 days

Back up everybody! Someone pulled out a universal quantifier... :P

But in all seriousness, I agree. I've heard these small-clause-y units in every variety of English I've encountered.

satiablecurtiosity · 23 days

I would say ==> is more spear-shaped than knife-shaped, but it's still appropriate.

tuckman496 · 27 days

Girl, the way you move your flesh ripping barbs makes me go crazy. Look deep into my surveillance orbs and tell me you love me, baby.

Konrad4th · 28 days

This dictionary cites to as "on/at" for temporal phrases in Middle English. (cf. sense 8e-f) That was the key concept that got me to understand.

clifwith1f · 1 month

Nice use of ~~Cyrillic with the Latin ligatures~~ the secret reddit kerning controls.

stupiditykills · 1 month

Not "Freshly Unwrapped Pad"?

hamlightning · 1 month

Have an upvote, to prove I wasn't being sarcastic. ;)

DoctorWhisky · 1 month

Doughn't be too critical though man. I've seen a lot of promising pun threads die when one person sesamean comment.

hamlightning · 1 month

Man, I guess it must be nighttime in Europe now, because where are the 10,000 Danish redditors to remind us how great their culture is.

suburban_smartass · 1 month

I got about fifty feet out and, suddenly, the great beast appeared before me. I tell you, he was ten stories high if he was a foot!

CrazyMcfobo · 1 month

Did you request something in particular?

corybant · 1 month

Except not-synonym is not the same as antonym. (Here's some rain for that parade.)

aafter · 1 month

everyone hates everyone that isn't part of the core set of useful trades.

As someone who is pursuing a traditionally "useless" degree, maybe Toady is just simulating reality even better than we realize!

Jalapeno-Wizard · 1 month

I think you have more freedom to move a preposition than part of a verb phrase.

Yeah I've heard this as well. I learned to call these kinds prepositional verbs, and the other kind (true) phrasal verbs. Another test is using pronouns. With phrasals it must be Verb+Pronoun+Particle, but with prepositionals it must be Verb+Prep+Pronoun:

it = the wall

Prepositional verb:

Some demonstrators had broken through it.

*Some demonstrators had broken it through.^{acceptable sentence but different meaning}

Phrasal verb:

*Some demonstrators had blown up it.

Some demonstrators had blown it up.

There are probably a few exceptions to this, but it's a decent rule of thumb.

Jalapeno-Wizard · 1 month

Yeah, I think most consider the structural role the defining characteristic for classifying prepositions vs. adverbs. Generally prepositions have complements (AKA the object of the preposition - "though the field"), while adverbs do not. The functions of the words are more variable. Both adverbs and prepositions can modify verbs (they are both functioning as "adverbials").

harranjo · 1 month

   ___       _ _                      _           _ _          
  / __\ __ _| | |  _ __ ___   ___    | | __ _  __| (_) ___ ___ 
 / /   / _` | | | | '_ ` _ \ / _ \   | |/ _` |/ _` | |/ _ | __|
/ /___| (_| | | | | | | | | |  __/_  | | (_| | (_| | |  __|__ \
\____/ \__,_|_|_| |_| |_| |_|\___( ) |_|\__,_|\__,_|_|\___|___/
                                 |/

proxypanda · 1 month

Ahhhh that all makes much more sense.

CL is computational linguistics. There are many different branches and goals subsumed under that label, but I was using "CL syntax" to refer to models designed specifically for parsing language by computer. The link grammar on the bottom is obviously a good example of this because you actually had a computer parse it for you. ;) I haven't read the book you are using, but its main aspiration seems to be exploring the usage of English. As such, the diagram from its model is a little closer to "CL syntax" than, say, generative syntax, which a lot of us are more familiar with. Generative syntax aspires to model the abstract ideal core to all languages, so it has some different restrictions on it. (If you're interested, I can highlight specifically why this model "looks CL", but that's a pretty big tangent...)

Top part:

Here's the tree I created. When I changed stuff, I tried to sound consistent with your/Morgenberg's terminology.

I wouldn't expect "The Governor" to be a proper noun (at least not any more than "the teacher" for example).
"a lot" I called "NP:MEAS" to indicate it is a measure phrase modifying "criticism". The whole constituent "a lot of criticism" is then labelled "NP:DObj". I would prefer "criticism" to be the head of this whole complex, but "lot" being the head isn't terrible and I feel it matches Morgenberg's approach.
As before, I called "last year" an "NP:ADV:TEMPORAL". I also prefer "last" as a determiner—this matches the link grammar on the bottom—but neither determiner nor adjective are completely satisfying to describe its function.
The rightmost constituents were adjusted slightly. This part falls in line with the definition of indirect object Morgenberg provides for his VG type verbs (as I found it cited on the internet anyway).

Bottom part:

This is a decent parse, but I would go with a different one. If you select "Show All Linkages," you can review all of the ones it generated. This is the fourth one (though I didn't capitalize "governor" so that it wasn't taken as a proper noun; the order is probably different without that change):

Linkage 4, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=1 AND=0 LEN=28)

 +-------------------------------------------------Xp------------------------------------------------+
 |                       +-------------------MVp------------------+                                  |
 |                       +---------------MVpn---------------+     |                                  |
 +------Wd------+        +--Op--+                           |     |           +-------Jp------+      |
 |      +---Ds--+---Ss---+   +ID+-Mp+--Jp--+         +--DTi-+     +--Jp--+-Mp-+     +----Am---+      |
 |      |       |        |   |  |   |      |         |      |     |      |    |     |         |      |
L-WALL the governor.n took.v a lot of criticism.n last.a year.t for.p cuts.n to higher.a education.n .

Notable differences:

I think the Q in "Qs" was a typo. It should be "O". This parse interprets "a lot" as plural so s changes to p too. (Your link had also shifted over by a word.)
"ID" indicates that "a lot" is a fixed idiomatic expression.
Only one "MVp" because "for cuts to higher education" is now interpreted as a single constituent. (Additionally you had a mistake in your version where the upper "MVp" connects to "year" instead of "for")
The rightmost "JP" should connect to "to", not "higher"

I have to amscray right now, so hopefully that covers it well enough. Hopefully that didn't sound harsh either - you're doing a great job of illustrating linguistics; it's just impossible to avoid these complexities. Language is crazy!

chastric

TROPHY CASE

chastric

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login