Where Mathematics and Grammar meet

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Which part of speech?

Verb
2
2%
Noun
48
52%
Adverb
25
27%
Adjective
5
5%
Preposition
9
10%
Conjuction/Interjection/Pronoun/Article/etc
4
4%
 
Total votes: 93

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Tue May 22, 2007 9:56 pm UTC

If that's a normal sample of raptor handwriting I have to go kill some "friends" with similar handwriting...

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Postby Alpha Omicron » Wed May 23, 2007 2:25 pm UTC

Ah, Klingon. Now I remember why I love a language that has (officially, if not technically) only three kinds of words: nouns, verbs and everything-elses. There aren't that many kinds of everything-elses either.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 23, 2007 3:50 pm UTC

As far as languages created for fictions go, Klingon is definitely far below on my list (were it actually to exist) than the ones Tolkien invented. Simple parts of speech notwithstanding.

As I recall, Klingon didn't start out as a language. It was only when they realized fans were trying to figure it out that they decided to make it one. Elvish (in its various forms), on the other hand, was fully invented before any of those books came out. And much of Tolkien's Middle Earth books were actually started as a way to give a believable history to the linguistic development.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

lukkucairi
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Postby lukkucairi » Thu May 31, 2007 3:16 am UTC

Belial wrote:Image


:big huge grins: :D

full disclosure: I graduated MA in writing with a concentration in language theory.

this thread makes me aware of how much I've forgotten :oops:

still, if someone wants to reinstate cases, you've got my vote. I had to learn 'em all to pass Old English anyway :wink:

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu May 31, 2007 3:24 am UTC

lukkucairi wrote::big huge grins: :D


That! That was exactly the response I was hoping that would garner. I feel my work here is done.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
EradicateIV
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 pm UTC
Location: Brownsville, PA
Contact:

Postby EradicateIV » Thu May 31, 2007 3:57 am UTC

That tree thing is really neat... Does it have a formal name?

I feel that this skill could help me out, BIG TIME.

My fear for grammar is big O(n!) even though I pull it off all the time usually with no problem.
1010011010

Our truth is only as good as our assumptions.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu May 31, 2007 4:29 am UTC

That tree thing is really neat... Does it have a formal name?


It's a sentence diagram...that's the only name I know for it...I kindof wish I could point you at a resource for how to do it, but I just remember it from having it ground into my brain with an undying vengeance in the 5th grade. I think I can do them in my sleep now.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Thu May 31, 2007 6:20 am UTC

EradicateIV, I just guess and sometimes I get it right.


P.S. You remind me of pokemans.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
EradicateIV
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 pm UTC
Location: Brownsville, PA
Contact:

Postby EradicateIV » Thu May 31, 2007 6:28 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:P.S. You remind me of pokemans.


Hmmm? How? My android responses to posts? rofl.
1010011010



Our truth is only as good as our assumptions.

charlesfahringer
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:02 am UTC

Postby charlesfahringer » Thu May 31, 2007 6:58 am UTC

q
Last edited by charlesfahringer on Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thesublime514
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:16 pm UTC
Location: Carrollton, TX
Contact:

Postby thesublime514 » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:20 pm UTC

"140 fpm" is the object of the preposition, right? Since "at" is a preposition..

User avatar
Zak McKracken
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:29 pm UTC

It's a number and a noun

Postby Zak McKracken » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:47 pm UTC

140 is a number and "feet/minute" is a noun which is the name of a physical unit. So much foor the type of the words involved -- just the same as "150 buckets"

Regarding which part of the sentence it is: None of the choices given are "part of sentence" -- that would "subject", "object(direct/indirect)" and so on ...

=> my answer to your question using the given choices would be "noun". It's the same as "it's moving at _a speed_ of ... and "speed" is a noun for sure!


Zak

BTW: Are you really still using those imperial units? Must be awful having to apply conversoin factors every time you compute anything that uses values of different units.
Can one hack writer, two Yale coeds and a stale loaf of french bread save the world from a galactic conspiracy?

User avatar
Zak McKracken
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:29 pm UTC

Postby Zak McKracken » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:57 pm UTC

Having read the other comments, I'd like to add:

while 140 ft/m is surle a number and a noun, the subsentence "at 140 ft/m" is an "adverbial ...thingie" Sorry, I only know this in German, "Adverbiale Bestimmung", because it gives closer information on the verb.
It would still be this if it was "the baloon's rising at the unbelievably high rate of something that is close to 140 ft/m)" -- the construct contains adjectives, adverbs, nouns, prepositions, conjunctions, but as a gramatical construct it is still an adverbial subconstruct.

Still voted for noun, because that's the type of word it is.

Zak
Can one hack writer, two Yale coeds and a stale loaf of french bread save the world from a galactic conspiracy?

|333173|3|_||3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:41 am UTC
Location: Adelaide, SA, Aus

Postby |333173|3|_||3 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So who's with me in favor of reinstating cases for at least some of these words? Some people still use "whom", which is the object form of "who" (like "me" is for "I").

But if we also reinstated whence, thence, and hence (for from where, from there, and from here, respectively), along with whither, thither, and hither (for to where, to there, and to here, respectively), perhaps these things would be less complicated. (There's probably also a word in older English for something like "at where". At least, there is in other languages with cases.)

Or... maybe not.

I use whom when writing formally, and try to use subject and object forms correctly, although my grammar (along with my spelling) does slip when posting on the internet.

bookishbunny wrote:it's okay to end a sentence in a preposition in English, especially when the only other option is an awkward sentence.

Winston Churchill one wrote in a marginal note "This is the sort of sentence up with which I will not put", mocking a tortuous wording used to avoid ending a sentence with an infinitive. Of course, in the case he used "This is the sort of sentence I will not put up with", the with is not a preposition, but rather a part of a phrasal verb, adn so may be used to end a sentence. I find that generally, a preposition at the end of a sentence is either redundant or part of a badly manged sentence, and so I will rephrase it. since a preposition must belong to a noun, if it is at the end of the sentence,

My vote: "at 140fpm" is an adverbial phase, "140fpm" is a noun.
Last edited by |333173|3|_||3 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The voices in my head tell me that I should write something here. Unfortunately, they won't tell me what to write.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:41 pm UTC

|333173|3|_||3 wrote:Of course, in the case he used "This is the sort of sentence I will not put up with", the with is not a preposition, but rahter a part of a phrasal verb, and so may be used to end a sentence.


I love pointing this out to people who think their grammar is better than mine because they're "correcting" me. Generally the ones who think it's their job to correct other people's grammar aren't the same ones who really understand how phrasal verbs work.

If, however, I'm corrected on a sentence where the last word actually is a preposition (being used as such), I will usually ask the self-styled grammar nazi if they go around asking people from where they are. Because I, along with pretty much every other fluent English speaker I've ever met, tend instead to ask people where they're from...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

As per OP's request, I haven't read any other posts

Postby Bondolon » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:45 pm UTC

In that sentence, 140 is a number followed by its unit, which is feet/minute. As feet and minute can't be split up without having a completely different meaning (and the / can't exist unless both are there), feet/minute is a word in itself. The word, then, feet/minute, is modified by 140, which says how many there are.

User avatar
Pathway
Leon Sumbitches...?
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:59 pm UTC

Postby Pathway » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am UTC

ZeroSum wrote:If that's a normal sample of raptor handwriting I have to go kill some "friends" with similar handwriting...


Raptors don't have hands. Ergo, they don't have handwriting. Ergo, that shouldn't be raptor handwriting. Which raises interesting, prosthetic-type questions.

Bondolon wrote:In that sentence, 140 is a number followed by its unit, which is feet/minute. As feet and minute can't be split up without having a completely different meaning (and the / can't exist unless both are there), feet/minute is a word in itself. The word, then, feet/minute, is modified by 140, which says how many there are.


Not quite. "Feet/minute" is just shorthand for "feet per minute." "Per minute" is then, what, a prepositional phrase modifying "feet"? And 140 also modifies "feet." Then "140 feet per minute" is a noun phrase. "At 140 feet per minute" is a prepositional phrase.
SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Where Mathematics and Grammar meet

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:15 pm UTC

mikesty wrote:
So, assuming it is all one phrase and the same part of speech, which part of speech is "140 feet per minute" in that sentence?

EDIT: Just for curiousity's sake, post your OWN ideas and thoughts before reading other's posts. I know this is usually against the norm, but I'm just curious to know what each individual thinks.


Gut reaction: before looking at the other replies: 140 feet per minute is four separate words. There's no effing reason it should be one part of speech. 140, number, adjective. feet, noun. minute, noun.

But "per" is funny. Plus the whole phrase modifies how fast the balloon is rising. If something modifies a verb (rising) it is an adverb. In this case, an adverbial phrase.

(I have a degree in a language-related subject, but it means very little to me.)

Now I get to go back and see if someone said this better, first.

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:18 am UTC

Pathway wrote:
ZeroSum wrote:If that's a normal sample of raptor handwriting I have to go kill some "friends" with similar handwriting...


Raptors don't have hands. Ergo, they don't have handwriting. Ergo, that shouldn't be raptor handwriting. Which raises interesting, prosthetic-type questions.

Bondolon wrote:In that sentence, 140 is a number followed by its unit, which is feet/minute. As feet and minute can't be split up without having a completely different meaning (and the / can't exist unless both are there), feet/minute is a word in itself. The word, then, feet/minute, is modified by 140, which says how many there are.


Not quite. "Feet/minute" is just shorthand for "feet per minute." "Per minute" is then, what, a prepositional phrase modifying "feet"? And 140 also modifies "feet." Then "140 feet per minute" is a noun phrase. "At 140 feet per minute" is a prepositional phrase.


Again, I maintain that "feet per minute" is even itself a single unit. The fact that it's composed of three words only means that there is a three word phrase to refer to a single noun entity in the same way that "Sean Patrick Flannery" refers to a single person. Again, though, "feet", "per", and "minute" all have extremely different meanings than the single term "feet per minute".

This is inevitably in purely scientific terms, though. The original sentence itself was completely agrammatical unless placed in the context of science/math, which was the intended context. A "foot per minute" is a unit of speed.

If taken out of context, 140 is a number modifying feet, which is then modified by per (a preposition) and minute, which is another noun. I'll like to again point out that this is taken completely out of context.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:01 am UTC

EradicateIV wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:P.S. You remind me of pokemans.


Hmmm? How? My android responses to posts? rofl.


That Rat Pokeman Radicate.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

|333173|3|_||3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:41 am UTC
Location: Adelaide, SA, Aus

Postby |333173|3|_||3 » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:51 am UTC

Bondolon wrote:
Pathway wrote:
ZeroSum wrote:If that's a normal sample of raptor handwriting I have to go kill some "friends" with similar handwriting...


Raptors don't have hands. Ergo, they don't have handwriting. Ergo, that shouldn't be raptor handwriting. Which raises interesting, prosthetic-type questions.

Bondolon wrote:In that sentence, 140 is a number followed by its unit, which is feet/minute. As feet and minute can't be split up without having a completely different meaning (and the / can't exist unless both are there), feet/minute is a word in itself. The word, then, feet/minute, is modified by 140, which says how many there are.


Not quite. "Feet/minute" is just shorthand for "feet per minute." "Per minute" is then, what, a prepositional phrase modifying "feet"? And 140 also modifies "feet." Then "140 feet per minute" is a noun phrase. "At 140 feet per minute" is a prepositional phrase.


Again, I maintain that "feet per minute" is even itself a single unit. The fact that it's composed of three words only means that there is a three word phrase to refer to a single noun entity in the same way that "Sean Patrick Flannery" refers to a single person. Again, though, "feet", "per", and "minute" all have extremely different meanings than the single term "feet per minute".

This is inevitably in purely scientific terms, though. The original sentence itself was completely agrammatical unless placed in the context of science/math, which was the intended context. A "foot per minute" is a unit of speed.

If taken out of context, 140 is a number modifying feet, which is then modified by per (a preposition) and minute, which is another noun. I'll like to again point out that this is taken completely out of context.


Of course, foot per minute is a phrasal noun, since if it were a derived unit we were discussing, then that unit is a noun, but since the expansion would be the same part of speech as the derived unit, the phrase used to describe the unit fully would still be a noun.

A correct way of asking "Where are you from?" would be "from where do you come?".

the principles of not splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions in English is fairly recent. It originated in Victorian England, in the middle class, who basically wanted to make sure the were completely distinguished from the upper working class. The practice did not spread to the upper class until later, when the young middle-class people who had grown up with the new rules taught the upper-class children. Both Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Bible split thier infinitives.
The voices in my head tell me that I should write something here. Unfortunately, they won't tell me what to write.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:40 pm UTC

|333173|3|_||3 wrote:A correct way of asking "Where are you from?" would be "from where do you come?".


Technically, that would be the "correct" way of asking, "Where do you come from?"

In any case, if I ever encounter someone who really does talk all stupid like that, all is not lost. I will simply point out that, no, "From where do you come" is still incorrect. What it should be is "Whence come you".

The kind of person who is that anal about prescriptive grammar probably thinks you have to say "to whom" instead of "to who". But in that case, you shouldn't say "from where" when that sense is already contained in the single word, "whence".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Pathway
Leon Sumbitches...?
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:59 pm UTC

Postby Pathway » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:50 pm UTC

Bondolon wrote:Again, I maintain that "feet per minute" is even itself a single unit. The fact that it's composed of three words only means that there is a three word phrase to refer to a single noun entity in the same way that "Sean Patrick Flannery" refers to a single person. Again, though, "feet", "per", and "minute" all have extremely different meanings than the single term "feet per minute".

This is inevitably in purely scientific terms, though. The original sentence itself was completely agrammatical unless placed in the context of science/math, which was the intended context. A "foot per minute" is a unit of speed.

If taken out of context, 140 is a number modifying feet, which is then modified by per (a preposition) and minute, which is another noun. I'll like to again point out that this is taken completely out of context.


Incorrect.
SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

User avatar
bookishbunny
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm UTC
Location: Lost in the Doll's House
Contact:

Postby bookishbunny » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:59 pm UTC

@gmalivuk

I use "to whom", and really bugs me when others don't. So, there.
~Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you push them down the stairs.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:36 pm UTC

bookishbunny wrote:@gmalivuk

I use "to whom", and really bugs me when others don't. So, there.


I admit that there are plenty of grammar things that I cringe at. Using who instead of whom happens to not be one of them, but at least that was once a more or less natural rule of English grammar. It just happens to be a rule that's falling out of use. (Disorientated is probably my number one complaint, at least among commonly-used nonwords. I fear it will eventually become part of the lexicon, and while I love examples of the language changing in the past, I hate this particular change in the present.)

I just don't like when people get upset over sentence-ending prepositions or split infinitives. Those, as was mentioned previously, are more or less contrived rules meant to Latinize a non-Romance language, basically for political reasons. You can't split a Latin infinitive, because it's made of one word. But they're two words in English, so I'll split them up if I damn well feel like it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
bookishbunny
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm UTC
Location: Lost in the Doll's House
Contact:

Postby bookishbunny » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:40 pm UTC

^^As you should! Split them like a banana!
~Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you push them down the stairs.

|333173|3|_||3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:41 am UTC
Location: Adelaide, SA, Aus

Postby |333173|3|_||3 » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:02 am UTC

Sir Ernest Gowers, in his manual of style for the British Civil Service, The Complete Plain Words, had two reasons for not splitting infinitives: firstly, there are those to whom a split infinitive is a sign of poor education, and this will reduce your ability to affect the reader precisely as you wish (which was to him the second most important reason for writing), and because there is usually a better way to phrase something than splitting the infinitive. He suggests that if a split infinitive is required in a long sentence to make the correct relationship between an adverb and the verbs in the sentence, then the sentence quite likely needs to be re-written to remove other faults as well.
Of course, "to boldly go where no man has gone before" is acceptable under his criteria, since neither "to go boldly..." nor especially "boldly to go..." has the same impact.

It was in his book that I first saw the marginal note by Churchill regarding sentences ended with prepositions which has been misquoted as someone's sig. In that book, he also has a wonderful example of split infinitives, with a comment to the effect that whilst this passage could be improved quite easily, it would spoil what was quite an impressive riot of splitting. The final part of the sentence had at least two complete clauses in between the to and the verb.
The voices in my head tell me that I should write something here. Unfortunately, they won't tell me what to write.

User avatar
Bondolon
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm UTC
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Postby Bondolon » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:37 am UTC

Pathway wrote:
Bondolon wrote:Again, I maintain that "feet per minute" is even itself a single unit. The fact that it's composed of three words only means that there is a three word phrase to refer to a single noun entity in the same way that "Sean Patrick Flannery" refers to a single person. Again, though, "feet", "per", and "minute" all have extremely different meanings than the single term "feet per minute".

This is inevitably in purely scientific terms, though. The original sentence itself was completely agrammatical unless placed in the context of science/math, which was the intended context. A "foot per minute" is a unit of speed.

If taken out of context, 140 is a number modifying feet, which is then modified by per (a preposition) and minute, which is another noun. I'll like to again point out that this is taken completely out of context.


Incorrect.


Glad to hear you disapprove.

User avatar
sillybear25
civilized syllabub
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:19 am UTC
Location: Look at me, I'm putting a meta-joke in the Location field.

Postby sillybear25 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:49 am UTC

"140 ft/min" really isnt one part of speech. "140 feet per minute" is four different words, comprising of three different parts of speech. 140 is an adjective, feet is a noun, per is a preposition, and minute is another noun (although "per minute" counts as a prepositional phrase, but that's going kind of further than necessary for this discussion...)

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:08 pm UTC

I said adverb 'cause it's a noun being used as one... adverbial phrase...

...I think.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

shill
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 2:13 am UTC
Location: Toronto, ON, CA

Postby shill » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Isn't the sentence properly "The balloon is rising at a rate of 140 feet per minute" ? Or is the "a rate of" completely unneccessary?

Well, rate refers generally to "a certain quantity or amount of one thing considered in relation to a unit of another thing and used as a standard or measure" (Dictionary.com Unabridged), so it is technically correct, but I would use the more specific word, "speed". In this case, "a rate of" or "a speed of" is probably unnecessary, as long as you include the word "at", but sometimes people don't even use the word "at" when referring to a measured quantity, i.e. "the water is 30 degrees". Now THAT is annoying. Also, back to the word "rate", the thing that really bugs me about it is when people say "rate of speed". :evil:


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests