"...levels the playing field somewhat"
― Pre-Madonna (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Sunday, 8 December 2013 21:48 (twelve years ago)
I don't know if this is exactly the right thread, but I am confused by the use of "vintage" to seemingly mean "classic" (as in "this US Open performance has been vintage Nadal" or "this essay is vintage Didion") Is this a slangy usage that became mainstream or does the word "vintage" have a shade of meaning I'm missing? I know the word originally comes from wine ("vin" as in "vinyard"), so the "vintage" was the harvest, which in turn came to mean the year. Then I guess from this it somehow got bastardized to just mean "old."
― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 16:16 (twelve years ago)
get a dictionary homie
― j., Wednesday, 12 February 2014 16:19 (twelve years ago)
I don't know where else to put this:
http://www.elezea.com/2014/02/lorem-ipsum-gone-wrong/
― ∞, Monday, 24 February 2014 17:50 (twelve years ago)
here here herey herey herey
♥
― eeeLuvium (Leee), Monday, 24 February 2014 18:08 (twelve years ago)
blah blah blah blah blah blahbalbvh alvhbahv albvha blah,says Lungani Zama
― Ewan Huzami (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 24 February 2014 21:48 (twelve years ago)
i would have layvsi would have lain
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:11 (twelve years ago)
"to lie" being the infinitive
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:12 (twelve years ago)
THIRD CONDITIONAL LAIN
― conrad, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:19 (twelve years ago)
lain
― Eyeball Kicks, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:20 (twelve years ago)
lain--lay is a transitive verb
― waterbabies (waterface), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:21 (twelve years ago)
c1380 Wyclif Wks. (1880) 286 Þei han so longe leyen in so gret cursinge.
― μ thant (seandalai), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:23 (twelve years ago)
Apparently "have lay" is attested up to the 17th century or so.
― μ thant (seandalai), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:24 (twelve years ago)
yes, third conditional, thanks
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:25 (twelve years ago)
Larger Q is why you would use a verb w/so many frikken rules
― waterbabies (waterface), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:33 (twelve years ago)
look
i understand that this isnt going to stop now.
but 'speak to' is horrific. it's fucking horrific.
― treeship's assailing (darraghmac), Saturday, 22 March 2014 22:55 (twelve years ago)
prepositions often get warped when describing abstract relationships. nature of the beast.
― Aimless, Saturday, 22 March 2014 22:58 (twelve years ago)
A Utah language-school employee was reported to have been fired for blogging about homophones.
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 20:11 (eleven years ago)
is there a recognized supplement to the apa manual on questions of style? i am way more used to chicago and i keep finding that every time i have a question i can expect chicago to answer, the apa manual is a useless piece of garbage
― j., Sunday, 23 November 2014 23:37 (eleven years ago)
what's a good word for "approachability" -- i.e. referring to someone who is accomplished but not intimidating
― k3vin k., Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:38 (eleven years ago)
In what sort of a sentence would this good word be employed?
― Aimless, Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:41 (eleven years ago)
Would modest or humble work in the context?
― Tomás Piñon (Ryan), Thursday, 26 February 2015 20:04 (eleven years ago)
i went with "affable". "modest" seemed insufficiently...reverent for someone so accomplished
― k3vin k., Thursday, 26 February 2015 20:08 (eleven years ago)
approachable
― local eire man (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:14 (eleven years ago)
You can be affable without being accomplished
― groundless round (La Lechera), Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:30 (eleven years ago)
I can at least! Haha.
you may be asking one word to do too much work
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:32 (eleven years ago)
― groundless round (La Lechera), Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:30 PM (9 minutes ago)
no i know, the word wasn't supposed to cover both
― k3vin k., Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:40 (eleven years ago)
new verb in a medical research context: "trialing"
jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:49 (eleven years ago)
this is new?
― Unheimlich Manouevre (dog latin), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:51 (eleven years ago)
hadn't seen it
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:51 (eleven years ago)
that is terrible
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:54 (eleven years ago)
the relentless drive to save syllables will eventually lead to American English becoming a tonal language of monosyllables, hums and clicks
― Aimless, Friday, 27 February 2015 17:01 (eleven years ago)
do any grammatical authorities still condemn the singular they?
― Who M the best? (Will M.), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 18:29 (eleven years ago)
Chicago says it's still unacceptable in formal writing.
― franny glasshole (franny glass), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 19:04 (eleven years ago)
if Chicago said you should jump off a cliff
― courtney barnett formula (seandalai), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:14 (eleven years ago)
Tangential question: could anything written expressly for the internet be considered formal writing?
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:21 (eleven years ago)
Absolutely!
― pplains, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:23 (eleven years ago)
I mean, journalists need to follow the same rules as their print counterparts. I would assume that any online professors out there would also tote the academic line of their on-campus colleagues.
― pplains, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:25 (eleven years ago)
presumably they would toe the line
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:27 (eleven years ago)
OK vs o.k. vs O.K. vs ok
i say the first one
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:50 (eleven years ago)
I only use "okay" basically.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:51 (eleven years ago)
ha! why that didn't occur to me i don't know. i would use that for a verb, i.e. "did he okay it?" but not for the affirmation
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:51 (eleven years ago)
xposts tote that line on down the road
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:52 (eleven years ago)
pplains there are a few rules i've seen bandied for online specifically, i.e. jakob neilsen's contention that online writing should always use digits for all numbers
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:53 (eleven years ago)
I just think "Okay!" looks more cheerful somehow.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:53 (eleven years ago)
Using "okay" allows this expression which is used as a single word to be written as a single recognizable word, whereas ok and OK, although very common, are more ambiguous (if you tried to pronounce them, they'd resemble "awk") and using O.K. is just asking for trouble.
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 22:08 (eleven years ago)
A.P. style is OK.
And I hate it.
I mostly agree with Neilsen. I can't bring myself to begin a sentence with a number though, but I do usually try to weasel myself out of that situation anyway.
― pplains, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 22:09 (eleven years ago)
pretty tired of working around '18-year-old ______ did ______' tbh
i mean at least give me captions, headers
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 23:49 (eleven years ago)
I've recently heard a prof. web writer/editor say web writing is informal writing by default. Of course if you're a journalist writing for an online publication it might be a different story, but you're going to have a house style or w/e that will address these questions, hopefully?
― franny glasshole (franny glass), Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:15 (eleven years ago)