This discussion is closed.
Chris Share
Badges:
#41
Report 17 years ago
#41
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 00:02:52 +0200s, martina([email protected]) said...
[q1]>Rich, Isn't Homerton just for Education Studies?[/q1]

It used to be, but not anymore.

[q1]>When I can't decide what to do I use my calculator. It has a generator of random numbers. You can[/q1]
[q1]>say 'If the number's even, I'll apply to Trinity, and if the number is odd, I'll apply to[/q1]
[q1]>Trinity'. )[/q1]

Lol. Though if it's anything like the other calcs I've seen, then 99.9% of the time it'll come up as
"non-integer rational number, Trinity Hall then".

[q2]>> So Cthulhu lives beneath Trinity College? That's disturbingly unsurprising...[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Lunatics, you two.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>M.[/q1]

Nah, not at all. Have a look at the website I said about cthulhu in my other post, first time I saw
it, I thought immediately of Trinity

chris
0
Martina
Badges:
#42
Report 17 years ago
#42
[q1]> Chris Share <[email protected] > pí¹e v diskusním[/q1]
[q1]> pøíspìvku:MPG.1792d627e4e31d2 [email protected][/q1]

ugh sorry if the top came through in Czech. I have to figure out how to connect my computer to the
Internet. I had to have windows reinstalled on it, and the techies kindly removed my messengers,
address books etc. and changed all the passwords, so I have to work on this Czech one. Btw where can
I get Gravity? (is that the newsreading thingy?)

M.
0
Pete Bartlett
Badges:
#43
Report 17 years ago
#43
"Chris Share" <[email protected]caesium.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
[q1]> if it's anything like the other calcs I've seen, then 99.9% of the time it'll come up as[/q1]
[q1]> non-integer rational number[/q1]

Be pretty impressive if they could fit an irrational number onto those piddly little screens that
calculators have.
0
Martina
Badges:
#44
Report 17 years ago
#44
[q1]> Nah, not at all. Have a look at the website I said about cthulhu in my other post, first time I[/q1]
[q1]> saw it, I thought immediately of Trinity [/q1]

From Chris's suggested website: It represented a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an
octopuslike head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws
on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind. This thing, which seemed instinct with a
fearsome and unnatural malignancy, was of a somewhat bloated corpulence...

I assure you I don't look like this at all, nor do I aspire to immitate this undoubtedly noteworthy
creature. It's all just Chris's propaganda, Rich. As you can see, Tit Hall is full of weirdos.

M.
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#45
Report 17 years ago
#45
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:27:11 +0200s, martina([email protected]) said...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]>> Chris Share <[email protected] > pí¹e v diskusním[/q2]
[q2]>> pøíspìvku:MPG.1792d627e4e31d2 [email protected][/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>ugh sorry if the top came through in Czech. I have to figure out how to connect my computer to the[/q1]
[q1]>Internet. I had to have windows reinstalled on it, and the techies kindly removed my messengers,[/q1]
[q1]>address books etc. and changed all the passwords, so I have to work on this Czech one. Btw where[/q1]
[q1]>can I get Gravity? (is that the newsreading thingy?)[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>M.[/q1]

Yep indeedies. To be found at: http://gravity.tbates.org/start1.html#download

chris
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#46
Report 17 years ago
#46
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:44:59 +0100s, Pete Bartlett([email protected]) said...
[q1]>"Chris Share" <[email protected] > wrote in message[/q1]
[q2]>> if it's anything like the other calcs I've seen, then 99.9% of the time it'll come up as[/q2]
[q2]>> non-integer rational number[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Be pretty impressive if they could fit an irrational number onto those piddly little screens that[/q1]
[q1]>calculators have.[/q1]

Well they seem to have a go at pi, e and more

chris
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#47
Report 17 years ago
#47
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 00:51:38 +0200s, martina([email protected]) said...
[q2]>>[/q2]
[q2]>> Nah, not at all. Have a look at the website I said about cthulhu in my other post, first time I[/q2]
[q2]>> saw it, I thought immediately of Trinity [/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>From Chris's suggested website: It represented a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an[/q1]
[q1]>octopuslike head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws[/q1]
[q1]>on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind. This thing, which seemed instinct with a[/q1]
[q1]>fearsome and unnatural malignancy, was of a somewhat bloated corpulence...[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I assure you I don't look like this at all, nor do I aspire to immitate this undoubtedly noteworthy[/q1]
[q1]>creature.[/q1]

Nah, that's just the master. It's reading the campaign policies that reminded me a lot of Trinity...
most Trinitarians look like normal humans. Sort of.

[q1]>It's all just Chris's propaganda, Rich. As you can see, Tit Hall is full of weirdos.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>M.[/q1]

Not as weird as you lot

Anyway, I'm not weird, I'm mad. I'd be eccentric but a) I'm not rich enough and b) it doesn't
sound as fun.

chris
0
Martina
Badges:
#48
Report 17 years ago
#48
[q2]> > if it's anything like the other calcs I've seen, then 99.9% of the time it'll come up as[/q2]
[q2]> > non-integer rational number[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Be pretty impressive if they could fit an irrational number onto those piddly little screens that[/q1]
[q1]> calculators have.[/q1]

ok, I took the trouble to dig out my calculator, and the random number generator does indeed
generate numbers between 0 and 1; 3 decimal places. It just shows that Chris lacks the imagination
to transform these into the whole numbers needed for my imaginative decision-making-facilitating
method. )

M.
0
Martina
Badges:
#49
Report 17 years ago
#49
[q1]> Yep indeedies. To be found at: http://gravity.tbates.org/start1.html#download[/q1]

thanks a lot. I'll try to figure out all the passwords, downloads etc. tomorrow, or rather
later today.

M.
0
Martina
Badges:
#50
Report 17 years ago
#50
[q2]> >It's all just Chris's propaganda, Rich. As you can see, Tit Hall is full[/q2]
of
[q2]> >weirdos.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >M.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Not as weird as you lot [/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Anyway, I'm not weird, I'm mad. I'd be eccentric but a) I'm not rich enough and b) it doesn't[/q1]
[q1]> sound as fun.[/q1]

No, no. You're more eccentric than the most eccentric hyperbola I've seen.

Look what I've just found:

If nobody's perfect and I'm a nobody, therefore I must be perfect!

M.
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#51
Report 17 years ago
#51
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:00:48 +0200s, martina([email protected]) said...
[q1]>ok, I took the trouble to dig out my calculator, and the random number generator does indeed[/q1]
[q1]>generate numbers between 0 and 1; 3 decimal places. It just shows that Chris lacks the imagination[/q1]
[q1]>to transform these into the whole numbers needed for my imaginative decision-making-facilitating[/q1]
[q1]>method. )[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>M.[/q1]

Oi! I do not, and I know exactly what you meant. I'm just bored out of my skull, so was being
deliberately obtuse

chris
0
Martina
Badges:
#52
Report 17 years ago
#52
[q1]> Oi! I do not, and I know exactly what you meant. I'm just bored out of my skull, so was being[/q1]
[q1]> deliberately obtuse [/q1]

how many degrees? Being obtuse at 91 degrees isn't the same as being obtuse at 179 degrees.

anyway, have you read all your books/built all your computers/played literati on yahoo etc.?

And have you jinxed my computer? The line I'm writing on keeps disappearing.

M.
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#53
Report 17 years ago
#53
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:35:50 +0200s, martina([email protected]) said...
[q2]>> Oi! I do not, and I know exactly what you meant. I'm just bored out of my skull, so was being[/q2]
[q2]>> deliberately obtuse [/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>how many degrees? Being obtuse at 91 degrees isn't the same as being obtuse at 179 degrees.[/q1]

Obtuse as in what you're being now :-p

[q1]>anyway, have you read all your books[/q1]

That'd be a bit hard, since it'd take the best part of a year doing nothing else to read them all...
[q1] Am definitely making significant headway into the "bought but not yet read" pile.[/q1]

[q1]>/built all your computers[/q1]

Only had one to build, and it sort of worked... then I found out the modem wasn't a real one, and
since that was kind of the whole point, I gave up and had to resort to windows connection sharing...

[q1]>/played literati on yahoo etc.?[/q1]

Quoi? No, on second thoughts don't tell me. Got enough to take up my time already

[q1]>And have you jinxed my computer? The line I'm writing on keeps disappearing.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>M.[/q1]

I never jinx anyone's computer. Ever.... mainly cos I'm too busy trying to get this pile of
junk to work.

chris
0
Martina
Badges:
#54
Report 17 years ago
#54
[q2]> >anyway, have you read all your books[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> That'd be a bit hard, since it'd take the best part of a year doing nothing else to read them[/q1]
[q1]> all... Am definitely making significant headway into the "bought but not yet read" pile.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

Hmmm. I finished G.G. Marquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold a few days ago. And yesterday I
enjoyed the last few pages of Design for a Life (popular science by two Cambridge ex-bio-nat-scis) -
it was really interesting.

[q2]> >/built all your computers[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Only had one to build, and it sort of worked... then I found out the modem wasn't a real one, and[/q1]
[q1]> since that was kind of the whole point, I gave up and had to resort to windows connection[/q1]
[q1]> sharing...[/q1]

no clue what you're talking about, but it sounds like a lot of fun.

[q2]> >/played literati on yahoo etc.?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Quoi? No, on second thoughts don't tell me. Got enough to take up my time already [/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

I'll tell you anyway. It's online scrabble.

M.
0
Matthew Huntbac
Badges:
#55
Report 17 years ago
#55
martina ([email protected]) wrote:

[q3]> > > Ah, but I've already visited Trinity and remained unimpressed. Gotten my photos back today as[/q3]
[q3]> > > well,[/q3]

[q1]> LOL. As I said you can visit other places if you wish. Btw a minor linguistic point: Is it right[/q1]
[q1]> to use ´gotten´ in British English? I thought it was an Americanism (I´m not criticising you. I´m[/q1]
[q1]> not a native speaker of English, so I´m just interested).[/q1]

"Gotten" as the past participle of the verb "to get" was a part of English when English speakers
started colonising North America. For some reason, in Britain it was dropped, people started using
"got" as the past tense and the past participle, while "gotten" remained in standard use in what
became the USA. Think of the verb "to eat" where the past tense is "ate" but the part participle is
"eaten", in both British and USA English. If the same thing happened to this verb, we'd say things
like "I had ate my dinner when you phoned".

So there's nothing ugly or ungrammatical or strange about "gotten", it just happens to be something
that is used in English in the USA, but is not in Britain. Or 'was'. Until a few years ago, "gotten"
really was never used by British people, and because we were unfamiliar with it, it really did look
and sound strange. But in the past few years I've noticed a growing tendency for British people to
use it, not in a conscious attempt to sound American (like when I'm in the USA and have to remember
to ask for "tomayto juice" because I get funny looks if I ask for "tomaato juice"), but
unconsciously because it now just seems the natural word to use.

As someone with an interest in language, this phenomenon interests me. My belief is that it comes
about because we watch a lot of USA films and television, to the extent that we pick up form them
language features that used to be exclusive to USA English. My concern is that if we are
unconsciously picking up our grammar from USA productions, what else are we unconsciously picking up
from them?

I am particularly interested to know whether this unconscious use of "gotten" is more common amongst
young people. If so, it would indicate that our language has actually changed.

[q2]> > Oh, and to see whether or not MMH has read this post I've included a special grammatical error[/q2]
[q2]> > in it somewhere. Find it and win a prize![/q2]
[q2]> > :-)[/q2]

[q1]> What will we get?[/q1]

A reply to your article from me. Second prize, two replies.

Actually, I think the "gotten" above may be ungrammatical in American English. Can you start a
sentence with a past participle? It would be like saying "Eaten my dinner today" rather than "Ate my
dinner today".

Matthew Huntbach
0
Martina
Badges:
#56
Report 17 years ago
#56
[q1]> "Gotten" as the past participle of the verb "to get" was a part of English when English speakers[/q1]
[q1]> started colonising North America.[/q1]

Ah, yes. I remember reading somewhere that American English is more Shakesperean than modern British
English. The American settlers retained some of the old English words, such as 'fall' (for autumn),
which had become obsolete in Britain.

[q1]> For some reason, in Britain it was dropped, people started using "got" as the past tense and the[/q1]
[q1]> past participle, while "gotten" remained in standard use in what became the USA. Think of the verb[/q1]
[q1]> "to eat" where the past tense is "ate" but the part participle is "eaten", in both British and USA[/q1]
[q1]> English. If the same thing happened to this verb, we'd say things like "I had ate my dinner when[/q1]
[q1]> you phoned".[/q1]

But forget has forgot, forgotten as the past tense and past participle respectively. Aren't 'get'
and 'forget' related?

[q1]> So there's nothing ugly or ungrammatical or strange about "gotten", it just happens to be[/q1]
[q1]> something that is used in English in the USA, but is not in Britain. Or 'was'. Until a few years[/q1]
[q1]> ago, "gotten" really was never used by British people, and because we were unfamiliar with it, it[/q1]
[q1]> really did look and sound strange. But in the past few years I've noticed a growing tendency for[/q1]
[q1]> British people to use it, not in a conscious attempt to sound American (like when I'm in the USA[/q1]
[q1]> and have to remember to ask for "tomayto juice" because I get funny looks if I ask for "tomaato[/q1]
[q1]> juice"), but unconsciously because it now just seems the natural word to use.[/q1]

Funnily, when I was doing EFL at school, we were brainwashed into learning British English. One of
my classmates studied at an American school when he was a kid, so he had a pronounced American
accent. The teacher (who is Czech) was always irritated when he said the broad American 'can't'
(with the 'a' as in 'sad').

Btw do British people have trouble understanding spoken American English? I can understand British
English relatively well (unless someone speaks very fast, mumbles or has a strong unusual accent),
but I really have to concentrate hard on understanding American English. (I understand BBC much
better than CNN, for instance).

[q2]> > What will we get?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A reply to your article from me. Second prize, two replies.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Actually, I think the "gotten" above may be ungrammatical in American English. Can you start a[/q1]
[q1]> sentence with a past participle? It would be like saying "Eaten my dinner today" rather than "Ate[/q1]
[q1]> my dinner today".[/q1]

Why not? Can't you say 'Been here before'?

The thing with ate/have eaten today is what EFL teachers get grilled about. In an interview for
a place on a TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) course, the interviewees had to show
how they would explain the difference between the following two sentences to a non-native
speaker of English:

I washed my car today. I have washed my car today.

M.
0
Matthew Huntbac
Badges:
#57
Report 17 years ago
#57
martina ([email protected]) wrote:
[q1]> Matthew Huntbach wrote:[/q1]

[q2]> > "Gotten" as the past participle of the verb "to get" was a part of English when English speakers[/q2]
[q2]> > started colonising North America.[/q2]

[q1]> Ah, yes. I remember reading somewhere that American English is more Shakesperean than modern[/q1]
[q1]> British English. The American settlers retained some of the old English words, such as 'fall' (for[/q1]
[q1]> autumn), which had become obsolete in Britain.[/q1]

This line of argument never really seems to get beyond "gotten" and "fall". You can also find
features of Shakepearian English that have been kept in British English, and lost in American.

[q2]> > For some reason, in Britain it was dropped, people started using "got" as the past tense and the[/q2]
[q2]> > past participle, while "gotten" remained in standard use in what became the USA.[/q2]

[q1]> But forget has forgot, forgotten as the past tense and past participle respectively. Aren't 'get'[/q1]
[q1]> and 'forget' related?[/q1]

Yes. It just goes to show there's no real logic in this.

[q1]> Btw do British people have trouble understanding spoken American English? I can understand British[/q1]
[q1]> English relatively well (unless someone speaks very fast, mumbles or has a strong unusual accent),[/q1]
[q1]> but I really have to concentrate hard on understanding American English. (I understand BBC much[/q1]
[q1]> better than CNN, for instance).[/q1]

I think we're exposed to so much American television and film that it isn't a problem, we're used to
hearing it. That's my thesis on British "gotten" - it marks American features gradually being
incorporated into British English through constant exposure to them in the media.

When you say "British English" do you actually mean "Received Pronunciation"
i.e. "standard" British English that you would hear on the BBC but actually few British people
speak? I've found that foreigners tend to find my own spoken English quite hard to understand,
probably because it tends to a little "Estuarial". ("Estuary English" is a name that has been
coined recently to refer to the speech of ordinary people in south-east England, which tends to
be quite a bit different from "Received Pronunciation").

[q2]> > Actually, I think the "gotten" above may be ungrammatical in American English. Can you start a[/q2]
[q2]> > sentence with a past participle? It would be like saying "Eaten my dinner today" rather than[/q2]
[q2]> > "Ate my dinner today".[/q2]

[q1]> Why not? Can't you say 'Been here before'?[/q1]

Yes, I wasn't sure - starting the sentence with "Gotten" as he did, would I suppose be ok if it
was a shortening of a sentence that started "I've". Since "gotten" is not in my English, it was
hard to tell.

[q1]> The thing with ate/have eaten today is what EFL teachers get grilled about. In an interview for a[/q1]
[q1]> place on a TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) course, the interviewees had to show how[/q1]
[q1]> they would explain the difference between the following two sentences to a non-native speaker of[/q1]
[q1]> English:[/q1]

[q1]> I washed my car today. I have washed my car today.[/q1]

Most native English speakers know there is a difference between these two forms, can feel
instinctively when one or the other should be used, but find it *very* hard to explain exactly
what it is.

Matthew Huntbach
0
Martina
Badges:
#58
Report 17 years ago
#58
[q1]> When you say "British English" do you actually mean "Received[/q1]
Pronunciation"
[q1]> i.e. "standard" British English that you would hear on the BBC but actually few British people[/q1]
[q1]> speak?[/q1]

Not really. Most native English speakers I know speak the kind of English I understand, even though
they don't have BBC pronunciations. By 'unusual' accents I mean for example strong Scottish accents
( I once listened to a Scottish farmer speaking and I couldn't make out a word of what he said).
Most 'educated' accents (including Scottish) would fall within the description of 'standard' for me.
It's just those that really deviate from what I'm used to that I have trouble with. I normally can't
hear the difference between the accents unless the person's 'unusual' accent is strong. I tend to
attribute most differences simply to variation among people (there is some natural variation even
among people raised/educated in the same environment). I wanted to do a British Studies course at
the British Council here a few years ago, and I asked the teacher who was to teach the course what
we'd do in the lessons. He said we'd be doing some work on accents, among other things. He said 'So,
for example, you can hear that I speak with an educated Scottish accent'. To me, his English sounded
no different from the English my teacher from Guernsey spoke. Nor can I hear any difference in
accent between people educated at public schools and state ones.

M.
0
N Bennett
Badges:
#59
Report 17 years ago
#59
Matthew Huntbach wrote:

[q3]> > > Actually, I think the "gotten" above may be ungrammatical in American English. Can you start a[/q3]
[q3]> > > sentence with a past participle? It would be like saying "Eaten my dinner today" rather than[/q3]
[q3]> > > "Ate my dinner today".[/q3]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > Why not? Can't you say 'Been here before'?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Yes, I wasn't sure - starting the sentence with "Gotten" as he did, would I suppose be ok if it[/q1]
[q1]> was a shortening of a sentence that started "I've". Since "gotten" is not in my English, it was[/q1]
[q1]> hard to tell.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

Well, if anybody said that in the US a) they would sound weird
b) it certainly wouldn't be grammatically correct.

You'd start a sentence with 'I got ...' or 'I've gotten ...'

My opinion anyway, what do I know, I haven't lived there in centuries.

Nora
0
Flexiblegoat
Badges:
#60
Report 17 years ago
#60
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:46:26 +0200, "martina" <[email protected]> wrote:

[q2]>> >Yes, Rich, Tit Hall is the only place worse than Oxf*rd.[/q2]
[q2]>> >[/q2]
[q2]>> >M.[/q2]
[q2]>>[/q2]
[q2]>> Quick question: are you actually at cambridge (or accepted) or is above stylised disdain based on[/q2]
[q2]>> you possibly-maybe being there in the future?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I've got an offer (an A in A-level Maths required) from Cambridge. So I will[/q1]
[q1]>possibly/maybe/hopefully be there in the not so distant future.[/q1]

realised this would be the probable answer after i pinged, but not even God can alter the past -
wait. I can cancel usenet messages; we all can (except possibly Rachel?); we are exalted beyond
omnipotence... <dies of plague>

Anyway, that makes it much less sad.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]>> You may not be my MOONPIG, although you say you are...[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I might be a moonpig but definitely not yours. Anyway, I don't know what moonpigs are.[/q1]

This was supposed to be a sig-tag, rather than personal. However, allow me to project, in its
resplendent glory - the one moment coursed with blood, the next suffused with treasures - the true
meaning of MOONPIG.

Well its an Ilse of Man word for "minger" (which is a word for...). However its meaning became
clouded when I decided that it would be a brilliant idea* to go up to every girl i could find in a
local "club" and ask if they'd be my MOONPIG. Many consented. Sadly one found out what it meant and
was close to tears (despite my assurances that she was in fact very pretty). This coupled with the
fact its a lovely word has shifted its meaning towards "soulmate", or depending on who you ask, "a
pig who lives on the moon". Now you know. Try hard to care.

_

You may not be my MOONPIG, although you say you are...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (299)
34.17%
No (576)
65.83%

Watched Threads

View All