Apparently "have lay" is attested up to the 17th century or so.
― μ thant (seandalai), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:24 (ten years ago) link
yes, third conditional, thanks
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:25 (ten years ago) link
Larger Q is why you would use a verb w/so many frikken rules
― waterbabies (waterface), Tuesday, 4 March 2014 14:33 (ten years ago) link
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 (ten years ago) link
prepositions often get warped when describing abstract relationships. nature of the beast.
― Aimless, Saturday, 22 March 2014 22:58 (ten years ago) link
A Utah language-school employee was reported to have been fired for blogging about homophones.
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 20:11 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
In what sort of a sentence would this good word be employed?
― Aimless, Thursday, 26 February 2015 19:41 (nine years ago) link
Would modest or humble work in the context?
― Tomás Piñon (Ryan), Thursday, 26 February 2015 20:04 (nine years ago) link
i went with "affable". "modest" seemed insufficiently...reverent for someone so accomplished
― k3vin k., Thursday, 26 February 2015 20:08 (nine years ago) link
approachable
― local eire man (darraghmac), Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:14 (nine years ago) link
You can be affable without being accomplished
― groundless round (La Lechera), Thursday, 26 February 2015 21:30 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
― 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 (nine years ago) link
new verb in a medical research context: "trialing"
jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:49 (nine years ago) link
this is new?
― Unheimlich Manouevre (dog latin), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:51 (nine years ago) link
hadn't seen it
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:51 (nine years ago) link
that is terrible
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, 27 February 2015 16:54 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
do any grammatical authorities still condemn the singular they?
― Who M the best? (Will M.), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 18:29 (nine years ago) link
Chicago says it's still unacceptable in formal writing.
― franny glasshole (franny glass), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 19:04 (nine years ago) link
if Chicago said you should jump off a cliff
― courtney barnett formula (seandalai), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:14 (nine years ago) link
Tangential question: could anything written expressly for the internet be considered formal writing?
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:21 (nine years ago) link
Absolutely!
― pplains, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:23 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
presumably they would toe the line
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:27 (nine years ago) link
OK vs o.k. vs O.K. vs ok
i say the first one
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:50 (nine years ago) link
I only use "okay" basically.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:51 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
xposts tote that line on down the road
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:52 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
I just think "Okay!" looks more cheerful somehow.
― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:53 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
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 (nine years ago) link
Writing anything on paper by default is usually informal too!
You should see my grocery list. It's nothing but sentence fragments.
― pplains, Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:40 (nine years ago) link
formality is a function of venue, audience, purpose, etc.
not medium
― j., Thursday, 23 April 2015 02:54 (nine years ago) link
I was reading the Jezebel piece on CVS/church burnings and noticed that the author uses the phrase "on accident," which I've heard spoken but had assumed was not accepted grammar. So I looked online and found this study: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/barratt16.htm which found that "by accident" is vastly preferred by people over the age of 35, while "on accident" is preferred by those under 35. No one seems to know what precipitated the shift.
― Immediate Follower (NA), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:36 (eight years ago) link
Oh no shit. That's really interesting! "On accident" definitely sounds wrong to my elderly ears.
― from batman to balloon dog (carl agatha), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:40 (eight years ago) link
It actually makes sense as a parallel phrasing to "on purpose" but yeah it sounds wrong to me too.
― Immediate Follower (NA), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:41 (eight years ago) link
man, how did that happen?
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:43 (eight years ago) link
i've never heard it spoken.
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:44 (eight years ago) link
"on accident" sounds vaguely posh and antiquated to me, ironically (sort of like "on approval")
― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:44 (eight years ago) link
Maybe a regional thing? I've never heard it (southern US)
― Brad C., Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:45 (eight years ago) link
The blog I found the article through said it would probably have to be via some kind of national media (like Barney) because it seems geographically widespread.
― Immediate Follower (NA), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:45 (eight years ago) link
I will say I'm not super well-versed in academic studies but that one does not seem like the most rigorous research possible. Still interesting though.
― Immediate Follower (NA), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:46 (eight years ago) link
barney... the dinosaur?
― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:47 (eight years ago) link