|
Yeah, of course it can. There might be some prescriptivist bullshit like "hopefully", but it's normal even in academic writing. Also, don't be a word sperg. Nobody likes a prescriptivist pedant. Especially not linguists.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Yeah, it's perfectly fine. Not even "fine if you're not pedantic", it's absolutely correct usage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
What about cases where the intended meaning isn't clear? "He ran the organisation effectively" can be read with both meanings. I guess I was looking more for a guide on what to do when it comes to such a situation. That's my main problem with accepting both meanings of "effectively".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
You'd have to try really hard to write a sentence where context doesn't resolve such an ambiguity. If somehow you've managed to do so, then re-write the sentence rather than deny a very common, very established meaning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
If you start the sentence with "Effectively, he... " then there is no ambiguity at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:05
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
With the new forum skin, can I bookmark threads without posting in them? Right now I sometimes feel tempted to effectively make a not-as-high-as-it-could-be-content-wise post because I really want to follow an E/N thread. e. I just found it, it's the little star at the bottom-left of the thread. Quite effectively hidden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Top of the thread, left side, click the star button. It just moved from the right side to the left side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Is there a fix for the "most recent post" link not working and taking me to the last post instead?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Is anyone still making Get Out frog dolls?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:What about cases where the intended meaning isn't clear? "He ran the organisation effectively" can be read with both meanings. I guess I was looking more for a guide on what to do when it comes to such a situation. That's my main problem with accepting both meanings of "effectively". If you wanted it to mean "in practice but not technically" you'd say "He effectively ran the organization." If you want to say he's doing a good job, you write it like you did. Why? I don't know. But that's how you'd do it. e: Maybe it's because it's more directly qualifying the verb if it's put before it instead of at the end of the sentence...
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Is anyone still making Get Out frog dolls? PM Comrade Quack
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
I'm having some guests over this weekend and we'll be ordering pizza, but it would be nice to be able to order before they get here. Is there some sort of online poll or some such thing that will let people put preferences and then figure out what would please (or least displease) everyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
hooah posted:I'm having some guests over this weekend and we'll be ordering pizza, but it would be nice to be able to order before they get here. Is there some sort of online poll or some such thing that will let people put preferences and then figure out what would please (or least displease) everyone? We use Survey Monkey at work, and they have a free version too. Links to G+, FaceBook, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
A straightforward translation of a song from one language to another often results in a song that doesn't rhyme or fit the melody. Getting the translated lyrics to fit the melody and rhyme requires extra work, and often means changing the meaning of a line (see this Mulan song). Is there a special term for the job of translating and altering a song such that you get a rendition that fits the melody?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
adapt/adaptation
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
I used to have a thing installed in Opera that gave YouTube links a tooltip showing the name of the video so you didn't have to open it to see what it was. I've reformatted my computer a couple of times since then and can't remember what the thing was called or where I got it. Does anyone know what it might be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Our receptionist was tasked to come up with a company motto. We now have a sign that says, "What we do is what we could become." She's a super nice lady and I'm not going to say anything but does that make any sense from a grammatical standpoint?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
It's grammatically fine because "what we could become" is a clause that might as well be one word. "what we do is x". But yeah it doesn't have to have bad grammar to not make any sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
As greatn basically said, it's probably grammatically fine, but maybe semantically bad because "what we do" makes you think of an action, whereas "what we could become" is probably not an action (compare: the famous "colorless green dreams sleep furiously") and also mottoly bad because it's not even clear to me what the intended meaning is supposed to be. Like "we do things that we aren't equipped to do properly yet but we hope to have the capacity to do it well in the future"? "The first 'we' refers to the company and the second 'we' refers to humanity and so we're supposed to be a shining example for the rest of the world"? "We work on robots and we hope that in the future society will be replaced by robots"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
kolby posted:Our receptionist was tasked to come up with a company motto. We now have a sign that says, "What we do is what we could become." She's a super nice lady and I'm not going to say anything but does that make any sense from a grammatical standpoint? My concern is less about the grammar and more about the logic, personally. e;f,b.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
This was a prime opportunity to go with "We do what we must because we can."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Golbez posted:This was a prime opportunity to go with "We do what we must because we can." Using that for my startup: Iris Technology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
What is the most recently discovered terrestrial megafauna? I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule for how big you have to be to be called that, so let's say 50 lbs or more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:What is the most recently discovered terrestrial megafauna? I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule for how big you have to be to be called that, so let's say 50 lbs or more. A good case could be made for the Moa and any other megafauna New Zealand may have had, as it was only populated ~700 years ago, There's also possibly the giant tortoises of the Galapagos, discovered by Europeans in the 16th century, though there is evidence of earlier visitation, though not settlement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:What is the most recently discovered terrestrial megafauna? I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule for how big you have to be to be called that, so let's say 50 lbs or more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I used to have a thing installed in Opera that gave YouTube links a tooltip showing the name of the video so you didn't have to open it to see what it was. I've reformatted my computer a couple of times since then and can't remember what the thing was called or where I got it. Does anyone know what it might be? I use a Greasemonkey script called Youtube Link Title that does basically that. But I'm not an Opera user so I'm not certain how Greasemonkey fits into its world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:What is the most recently discovered terrestrial megafauna? I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule for how big you have to be to be called that, so let's say 50 lbs or more. Here it's really important what you mean both by 'discovered' and 'megafauna'. There are several 'new' species described among large mammals each year, as old species are split into two separate ones when it is discovered that they are somehow different and have been separate species, only it got unnoticed for many years. One example is the Australian snubfin dolphin, that was recognized as a separate species from the Irrawaddy doplhin as recently as 2005. There's still debate on how many species should be recognized in such familiar species as the tiger, the common chimpanzee and the giraffe. For truly newly discovered large mammals, the Saola is a strange bovine creature that lives in the forests of Laos and Vietnam. It weighs about 90 kilograms.  It was described from remains in 1993 and an individual in 2010 was captured alive by locals but died before it could be documented by scientist and released into the wild. No scientist has yet seen a wild saola. The lesula monkey was described last year, and has been known by locals for a long time, and known but undescribed by science since at least 2007. It don't know how heavy it is   e: I should clarify the difference between 'discovered' and 'described'. There is no scientific definition of 'discovered', as animals are often known locally but not by scientists. 'Described' refers to the year when the discovery was published in a scientific publication and fulfilling the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Describing a new species is a process that can take years, as you really want to document as much as you can in the descriptions. e2: Wow, actually got some use out of my degree in Systematic Zoology 
axolotl farmer fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
There is this owl that was known but thought to be a different species for 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Trastion posted:There is this owl that was known but thought to be a different species for 100 years. Thanks for all the good answers. This article is actually what made me start wondering about that. The saola is probably closest to what I had in mind, and I'd completely forgotten about the Gene Wilder monkey too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Is there any way to force Google to use a certain spelling in a search? Searching for all the info about a person with an unusually spelled name, "Johnn Smith" for example, brings up results for "John," "Jon," "Johnny," etc. with them all bolded as if they were search terms. I can see how that would be useful in other cases, but I know I only want results with the way I spelled it. Can I get it to JUST find my spelling?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:Is there any way to force Google to use a certain spelling in a search? Searching for all the info about a person with an unusually spelled name, "Johnn Smith" for example, brings up results for "John," "Jon," "Johnny," etc. with them all bolded as if they were search terms. I can see how that would be useful in other cases, but I know I only want results with the way I spelled it. Can I get it to JUST find my spelling? http://www.google.com/advanced_search
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
^^^ Try Google's Verbatim search. Click Search Tools under the search bar, All Results > Verbatim. This allows you to wrap use-sensitive terms in "" to better enforce specificity. ------------- Over a long term timeline: As fresh-water reserves become more scarce, is the environmental impact of washing dishes in fresh water more or less severe than using plastic/styrofoam disposable utensils? It seems to me that landfill ground-area is probably less scarce than fresh water in extended future. Especially in areas with lessened access to freshwater or those in extended droughts. I understand that water transport and desalination are probably preferred where it's economically viable, but I wanted input from people what probably know much more on the topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Water is a highly renewable resource, where styrofoam is made of petroleum products, must be transported to the consumer, and then carted away. It will take up space in the land fill, never decompose, and it's conceivable that it will outlast the human race. On the other hand, there's no reason why the water from dishes can't be reclaimed, filtered, and then immediately used to wash more dishes. It's not like you "burn" water in order to wash things. There is no circumstance where is is more economically viable to use disposable utensils than to wash the ones that you have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
I used to eat at a local Thai restaurant that had a dish they called 'Angry Chicken.' A little googling reveals this is a common dish. Does it have a more traditional Thai name? I've haven't seen it served at other Thai restaurants I've gone too, which is a real shame, because it was delicious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I used to have the development thread for the Awful App bookmarked but I guess is moved on for a new version or something. Can anybody remind me where to find it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:I used to have the development thread for the Awful App bookmarked but I guess is moved on for a new version or something. Can anybody remind me where to find it? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3510131&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Or, if you have an Android device: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3391052
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
How come 3-minute YouTube videos sometimes take maybe 10 minutes to load, even though my connection is fine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
hooah posted:How come 3-minute YouTube videos sometimes take maybe 10 minutes to load, even though my connection is fine? Sometimes Youtube's CDN (content delivery network), which is supposed to have you access videos from a server physically and network-wise closer to you and your connection, will accidentally set you up with a server located far away, or meant for another isp. This can lead to decreased transfer performance since the server will be more network links away and possibly those links will have bandwidth issues. You may be able to get assigned to new ones by logging out of Youtube and resetting your cable or DSL modem, then logging back in. This isn't guarenteed to work though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
See ventral image of a goblin shark. See the two black dots alongside the mouth? Those aren't the eyes, which are out of view. Are they nostrils?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 21:09
|
|