zompist bboard

Shm Jay wrote:

linguoboy wrote:

King of My Own Niche wrote:2) Are you somehow a member of the Yakuza?

Again, it's obvious on anything more than a quite cursory examination that the calligraphy is brushed on. That said, can anyone guess the medium?

Kikkoman soy sauce?

Haha I was going to say soy sauce as well!

linguoboy wrote:http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g47 ... 1306889574

That man is wearing Catullus! 2 and 85, no?

(What part of the body would you write carmen 16 on?)

Dewrad wrote:

linguoboy wrote:http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g47 ... 1306889574

That man is wearing Catullus! 2 and 85, no?

FINALLY. I was beginning to lose all hope. I mean, I post a sexy picture of myself inscribed with LATIN CALLIGRAPHY and all anyone can talk about is deontic modals in English? Caesar wept!

Dewrad wrote:(What part of the body would you write carmen 16 on?)

My boyfriend's favourite part.

linguoboy wrote:FINALLY. I was beginning to lose all hope. I mean, I post a sexy picture of myself inscribed with LATIN CALLIGRAPHY and all anyone can talk about is deontic modals in English? Caesar wept!

I was biting my tongue because the passer poems always remind of one particular interpretation I read about the sparrow especially the significance of its death.

linguoboy wrote:

King of My Own Niche wrote:2) Are you somehow a member of the Yakuza?

Again, it's obvious on anything more than a quite cursory examination that the calligraphy is brushed on. That said, can anyone guess the medium?

I said Yakuza because of the it seemed one pinky nail was longer than the rest. Which something the Yakuza do.

Because, y'know...

The drugs.

After all these years, Linguoboy! Awesome. For the better part of a decade I've vaguely wondered what you might be hiding, like maybe you were a public figure hoping not to be recognized and the whole library thing was a cover story. But I still can't put that to rest, because your face isn't really visible! Excellent work at being enigmatic. Tell me you're not actually a congressman or wanted on suspicion of terrorism or a silicon valley tycoon, please.

...ignore the mess that is that beard.

jal wrote:

finlay wrote:I don't think there is a difference between the type of obligation (I can't remember; I'm sure there are subtle distinctions where one is permissible and the other isn't)

What I've been taught in school is that "must" expresses internal, self controlled obligation, while "have to" expresses external, uncontrolled obligation. "I must go" has therefore more in common with "I should go" then with "I have to go".

Not in my dialect (Australian) or possibly just my idiolect. Even for internal obligation, I'd say "have to". I pretty much only use "must" for deductions or when humorously using a mock-formal register or imitating Hugh Grant. Some of my students seem to be under the impression that "must" is stronger than "have to", but I convey the strength of the obligation either with stress or adverbs such as "simply" or "absolutely", and I would never choose "must" to show that it is stronger or internal.

That said, among people who do use "must" in their normal speech to indicate obligation rather than just deduction, I suppose it isn't really used for external obligation. But then, "have to" can definitely be used for either internal or external obligation, and if there are people who never use "have to" for internal obligation, I've never picked up on it.

And now I'm not sure why you've mentioned "should". "Should" can be used for either internal or external obligation, it's just that it's a weaker sort of obligation than "must/have to", not so much "it is necessary" but more "it's a good idea". What do they teach you about "should"?

Dutch has a suppletive form "hoeven": "dat hoeft niet" means "that's not necessary", "je hoeft het niet te doen" "you don't have to do that". "musn't" is translated by the ordinary negative: "je moet dat niet doen" "you musn't do that".

I'd say that's etymologically related to Swedish "behöva" ("to need") and English "behove" /bi'hu:v/ (or "behoove" in America). I really like this word ... nobody uses it except in that funny mock-formal register. In English, it is reversed, meaning not "need" but "be necessary", eg. "It behoves me to decline your invitation."

Imralu wrote:And now I'm not sure why you've mentioned "should". "Should" can be used for either internal or external obligation, it's just that it's a weaker sort of obligation than "must/have to", not so much "it is necessary" but more "it's a good idea". What do they teach you about "should"?

Basically that, except that it's internal as well, I think.

Dutch has a suppletive form "hoeven": "dat hoeft niet" means "that's not necessary", "je hoeft het niet te doen" "you don't have to do that". "musn't" is translated by the ordinary negative: "je moet dat niet doen" "you musn't do that".

I'd say that's etymologically related to Swedish "behöva" ("to need") and English "behove" /bi'hu:v/ (or "behoove" in America). I really like this word ... nobody uses it except in that funny mock-formal register. In English, it is reversed, meaning not "need" but "be necessary", eg. "It behoves me to decline your invitation."

[/quote]

Not reversed then, since "niet hoeven" means "to not be necessary" as well (and "not be necessary" means "not be needed", right?).


JAL

jal wrote:Basically that, except that it's internal as well, I think.

It doesn't have to be. I'd say it's neutral on the source of the obligation.

jal wrote:Not reversed then, since "niet hoeven" means "to not be necessary" as well (and "not be necessary" means "not be needed", right?).

Sorry, I didn't read both of these.

"dat hoeft niet" means "that's not necessary", "je hoeft het niet te doen" "you don't have to do that".

It's like the first one, not the second. The obligated person is the object of "behove", the obligatory action is a "to + INFINITIVE" phrase, and we use a dummy subject ("it"). We can't say "You behove to do that". We could only say "It behoves you to do that". (As far as I know ... it's not really in my active vocabulary.) Can you say "Het hoeft jij, dat te doen" or only "Dat hoeft je te doen"?

Proof that my alleged journey to Finland wasn't all LIES LIES LIES, here is a picture of Miekko giving me psychiatric advice:

Just for the heck of it, here's a really horrible picture of me and Gulliver taken when we met at a New York gay bar, earlier this winter. I apologise for the low quality.

It seems like I am the only non-gay in the village...

get it? get it?

You're too late. I already said that a couple of pages back.

Nah, I'm pretty clearly heterosexual. That's been obvious since I posted that sketchy poem...

vecfaranti wrote:Just for the heck of it, here's a really horrible picture of me and Gulliver taken when we met at a New York gay bar, earlier this winter. I apologise for the low quality.

Yaaaay. I have very hazy memories of that night. Gin is amazing.

Gulliver wrote:

vecfaranti wrote:Just for the heck of it, here's a really horrible picture of me and Gulliver taken when we met at a New York gay bar, earlier this winter. I apologise for the low quality.

Yaaaay. I have very hazy memories of that night. Gin is amazing.

It was a good night, and yes, gin is amazing. In fact, I intend to have some tonight.

Gulliver wrote:

vecfaranti wrote:Just for the heck of it, here's a really horrible picture of me and Gulliver taken when we met at a New York gay bar, earlier this winter. I apologise for the low quality.

Yaaaay. I have very hazy memories of that night. Gin is amazing.

vecfaranti wrote:It was a good night, and yes, gin is amazing. In fact, I intend to have some tonight.

Oh ho-ho-oh. Lord'o'Mighty...

[redacted for privacy reasons]

Looks good!

You have a mischievous look about you. But it does look good.

Oh thanks.

Just a note: Yes, I really am that pale. But unlike the photo, I am not, in fact, bright yellow.

Girl your hair looks great. Sure it isn't done up but there's something to be said for a natural look.

Boyfriend and I in our suite at the casino.