<Don't know, that's the way it came into my head. >
Is it an error?
Is it an error?
help with meaning
<I actually think I would be hindering them by explaining every little thing. >
Do you think the choice between using "fitted" at one moment and "fit" at the next is a little thing? So, could your sentence just as easily be put like this?
"I fit the ship with all the new features, so finally it fitted the definition of the greatest ship in the world!"
Do you think the choice between using "fitted" at one moment and "fit" at the next is a little thing? So, could your sentence just as easily be put like this?
"I fit the ship with all the new features, so finally it fitted the definition of the greatest ship in the world!"
<but I added it in afterward to separate the double-quoted terms. (Do you know what I mean by "separate the double-quoted terms"?) >
Yes, I know what you mean, but the double-quoted terms were already separated in that they appeared in two quotes.
Yes, I know what you mean, but the double-quoted terms were already separated in that they appeared in two quotes.
Guest,
>><I actually think I would be hindering them by explaining every little thing. >
Do you think the choice between using "fitted" at one moment and "fit" at the next is a little thing? So, could your sentence just as easily be put like this?
"I fit the ship with all the new features, so finally it fitted the definition of the greatest ship in the world!"<<
No. That would sound strange. Think:
"That's a nice fitted skirt you bought."
"The tailor fitted the pants to my waist."
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fit into her spare glass shoe."
+"It fit the definition of a spaceship gone astray."
>><I actually think I would be hindering them by explaining every little thing. >
Do you think the choice between using "fitted" at one moment and "fit" at the next is a little thing? So, could your sentence just as easily be put like this?
"I fit the ship with all the new features, so finally it fitted the definition of the greatest ship in the world!"<<
No. That would sound strange. Think:
"That's a nice fitted skirt you bought."
"The tailor fitted the pants to my waist."
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fit into her spare glass shoe."
+"It fit the definition of a spaceship gone astray."
Divvy,
>>Yes, I know what you mean, but the double-quoted terms were already separated in that they appeared in two quotes.<<
Perhaps so, but at the time I was typing it, it seemed bad form to leave them right next to each other. That was the original motivation for adding the "to."
>>Yes, I know what you mean, but the double-quoted terms were already separated in that they appeared in two quotes.<<
Perhaps so, but at the time I was typing it, it seemed bad form to leave them right next to each other. That was the original motivation for adding the "to."
<< Maybe you'd like to lose the implicitness we have in English? >>
It's not a matter of what I'd "like"... language change isn't controllable, it just happens. Even if I stopped using the "rename to" construction, other people would keep using it.
<< When you provide a good explanation Beneficii (aka Kef) >>
There is no demonstrable connection between us other than that we both happen to disagree with you. The same could not be said for you two, even before the IP address thing. As for me, I'm going to stay out of it, because I don't think whether you two are the same person or not is really my business anyway. I'm just pointing out that there is more evidence that you two are the same person, whether or not it's true, than there is that beneficii and I are the same person.
BTW, beneficii, I don't see anything "sub-par" about M56's English.
Pos, you still have yet to explain what the heck is wrong with the "it fit" sentence.
- Kef
It's not a matter of what I'd "like"... language change isn't controllable, it just happens. Even if I stopped using the "rename to" construction, other people would keep using it.
<< When you provide a good explanation Beneficii (aka Kef) >>
There is no demonstrable connection between us other than that we both happen to disagree with you. The same could not be said for you two, even before the IP address thing. As for me, I'm going to stay out of it, because I don't think whether you two are the same person or not is really my business anyway. I'm just pointing out that there is more evidence that you two are the same person, whether or not it's true, than there is that beneficii and I are the same person.
BTW, beneficii, I don't see anything "sub-par" about M56's English.
Pos, you still have yet to explain what the heck is wrong with the "it fit" sentence.
- Kef
<< White and Arndt (1991:4) say "readers expect writers to use language which is clear, unambiguous, and appropriate to the context and type of text concerned".
Seems Kef and Benefishy disagree with the last part of that. >>
I don't see why "rename to" is automatically inappropriate in formal (or whatever) contexts. The English language isn't so rigid that it can't handle minor variations in grammar in formal contexts. Of course, it does depend on what the variations are.
- Kef
Seems Kef and Benefishy disagree with the last part of that. >>
I don't see why "rename to" is automatically inappropriate in formal (or whatever) contexts. The English language isn't so rigid that it can't handle minor variations in grammar in formal contexts. Of course, it does depend on what the variations are.
- Kef
Beneficii and Kef both like Japanese, but their writing styles are very different imho.
<No. That would sound strange. Think:
"That's a nice fitted skirt you bought."
"The tailor fitted the pants to my waist."
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fit into her spare glass shoe."
+"It fit the definition of a spaceship gone astray.">
You keep saying "think", but can you explain? I don't see the difference in use. Please tell us.
"That's a nice fitted skirt you bought."
"The tailor fitted the pants to my waist."
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fit into her spare glass shoe."
+"It fit the definition of a spaceship gone astray.">
You keep saying "think", but can you explain? I don't see the difference in use. Please tell us.
<"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fit into her spare glass shoe." >
Are you saying that this is not also correct?
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fitted into her spare glass shoe."
Why is it not correct?
Are you saying that this is not also correct?
"The duke reacted with pleasure when Cinderella's foot fitted into her spare glass shoe."
Why is it not correct?
<Perhaps so, but at the time I was typing it, it seemed bad form to leave them right next to each other. That was the original motivation for adding the "to." >
Better to rewrite the sentence in another way.
Better to rewrite the sentence in another way.
<<It's not a matter of what I'd "like"... language change isn't controllable, it just happens. Even if I stopped using the "rename to" construction, other people would keep using it. >>
I don't think it will wander far outside the bounds of Linux +.
I don't think it will wander far outside the bounds of Linux +.
Linux? I was quoting examples from Microsoft, who are among the most anti-Linux guys on the planet. If you mean the computer world, you might be right, I don't know, but it did seem natural enough to me to generalize the construction beyond computer contexts.
- Kef
- Kef
<but it did seem natural enough to me to generalize the construction beyond computer contexts. >
As I said, I guess some native speakers can't deal with implicitness. Not unlike computers, eh?
As I said, I guess some native speakers can't deal with implicitness. Not unlike computers, eh?
Kef,
This is interesting. At work, I asked some people (all native speakers) how that sounded, they said it sounded fine. But then I asked my mom and she says it doesn't sound quite right, so I don't know. I guess perhaps the thin vale of native speakers know best sorta falls apart here? Perhaps it's not the case that native speakers of a language have secret, arcane, special knowledge of that language?
This is interesting. At work, I asked some people (all native speakers) how that sounded, they said it sounded fine. But then I asked my mom and she says it doesn't sound quite right, so I don't know. I guess perhaps the thin vale of native speakers know best sorta falls apart here? Perhaps it's not the case that native speakers of a language have secret, arcane, special knowledge of that language?