Re: English questions
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2024 3:41 pm
Developers have cow-orkers.
Cow-orkers aside, if someone at my work (for those who don't already know, I'm a programmer by profession) spoke of "colleagues" I would think they had drunk too much of the human resources department Kool-Aid.zompist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 3:18 pmYeah, it's class Doctors have colleagues, plumbers have co-workers. Someone in the middle, like developers, can have either.
As ever, there are nuances. You can talk about a grocery bagger's colleagues, but it's ironic or condescending. If you talk about a doctor's co-workers, it'd be likely taken as their secretaries and nurses.
There is a type of hair colour called "strawberry blonde". Wiktionary describes it as "hair [that] appears blonde in dim light, but when exposed to sun or a bright light, the hair may assume a slight tinge of pink or red color". I rarely see this term used outside of popular literature from the mid-20th century and earlier.Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 6:39 am I'm currently reading an English-language novel in which a character is described as blond on one page and as red-haired on the next page. Is that just the author being sloppy, or can red-haired sometimes be seen as a subdivision of blond in the English language?
Thank you. I don't think that applies here - the book is from the turn of this century.Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 3:44 pmThere is a type of hair colour called "strawberry blonde". Wiktionary describes it as "hair [that] appears blonde in dim light, but when exposed to sun or a bright light, the hair may assume a slight tinge of pink or red color". I rarely see this term used outside of popular literature from the mid-20th century and earlier.Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 6:39 am I'm currently reading an English-language novel in which a character is described as blond on one page and as red-haired on the next page. Is that just the author being sloppy, or can red-haired sometimes be seen as a subdivision of blond in the English language?
Wiktionary gives a citation from 1790 (Burns’s poem Tam o’ Shanter), apparently with more or less the same meaning. It does however note that Lovecraft reintroduced it into modern literature.
I think so? Maybe? Analogous with <flown> ?
I'm just using the standard terminology for English. Yes, in many cases the present participle is really an active participle and the past participle is really a passive participle, even though slown as in "The rain has slown down" doesn't sound very passive.TomHChappell wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 9:45 amI think so? Maybe? Analogous with <flown> ?
It must be rarish, if we have it here.
….
I feel that participles of “slow” would be active and passive, rather than present and past. But in the case of “slown” — if we have it here and now in my ‘lect — those participles would apparently be homonyms. Assuming I’m not just all wet!
?"I'm gonna get right to it" said Michael.
…and would also put the comma outside the quotation marks.
I only have one book printed and bought in England, but it disagrees with you. Sample:
Admittedly this book is 19th century, but this copy was re-issued in 1982.'Very close in here,' he said.
'Quite oppressive,' said the man next to him.
Here's an article from Larry Trask, hosted by the University of Sussex, which gives British usage pretty thoroughly. Toward the end he gets into some cases where people fight about whether a punctuation mark goes in or out of the quote marks. However, the dispute involves direct quotation of printed material where it's a matter of fact (or not) what the original material had as punctuation, not reported speech where there is none.‘I wish, Daddy,’ he said, coming to his point, ‘that you wouldn’t write all this stuff about flying. The chaps rot me.’
‘Yes!’ said his father.
My teacher insisted it had to beTo branch to a subroutine you write "GOSUB 12000".
which I strongly objected to, as the final period makes it incorrect BASIC. But he wasn't convinced, the poor deluded man. However, this sort of thing is rare.To branch to a subroutine you write "GOSUB 12000."
I did simplify a bit. My understanding of the rule is that the punctuation goes inside the quotes when it semantically belongs with the quote, and outside the quotes when it belongs with the surrounding sentence.zompist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 8:03 pmI only have one book printed and bought in England, but it disagrees with you. Sample:
Admittedly this book is 19th century, but this copy was re-issued in 1982.'Southend pier!' he replied, with a puzzled expression.
'Yes; going down to Yarmouth, last Friday three weeks.'
Or, from Project Gutenberg, from an H.G. Wells novel
‘I wish, Daddy,’ he said, coming to his point, ‘that you wouldn’t write all this stuff about flying. The chaps rot me.’
‘Yes!’ said his father.
A cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.
As another Brit, pretty much the same thing. The only time where I was ever told to use a specific kind of quotation marks was when giving the title of something on paper (because you can't do italics well), and I think we were told to do this in constrast to the double quote we'd all normally use e.g.quinterbeck wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 1:20 amA cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.
Me in some English essay scarily long ago wrote: In ‘Romeo and Juliet’ Shakespeare presents the theme of …
Sadly, this is also contested. I was definitely told in school to put the punctuation inside, but that is clearly wrong, so I've always put it on the outside (unless in a context where it would lose me marks)
I reckon y'all are getting Americanized. Y'all're gonna be writing "honor" and "Americanized" soon.Lērisama wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:50 amAs another Brit, pretty much the same thing.quinterbeck wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 1:20 amA cursory look online tells me this is highly contested. As a Brit, I am used to seeing double quotation marks as default everywhere, and it's the option I find most natural. I don't recall being taught to use one or the other in school, but I'm pretty sure I've always used double-quotes.