Author Topic: Questions for Callaway  (Read 116152 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #90 on: May 20, 2007, 07:26:31 PM »
Or cooking ones.
Cooking is chemistry and physics....

Underneath perhaps, but in truth, like spam,
it is an art.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #91 on: May 20, 2007, 07:28:27 PM »
Or cooking ones.
Cooking is chemistry and physics....

Underneath perhaps, but in truth, like spam,
it is an art.

Your spam obsession makes me wonder if you're a Mont Python nut.  ::)

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #92 on: May 20, 2007, 07:30:42 PM »
Python's okay, but spam is better.
It's perhaps the only thing they got
right.

I actually have a collection of 1000's
of spam messages in my mail.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2007, 07:49:39 PM »
Or cooking ones.
Cooking is chemistry and physics....
yeah, you dipshit!
Misunderstood.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #94 on: May 21, 2007, 01:11:29 AM »
is it ever appropriate to write you'd had in a sentence?

You’d is the contraction for both “you would” and “you had.”  I can't think of a sentence with "you had had" but if you can think of one, then you could properly use "you'd had" in its place.  If you used "you would had" then you would need a "have" in there, I think, so it would be "you'd have had" as in, "You'd have had a chance in the race, but you pulled your hamstring."




"You had had" is plusquamperfectum, "pluperfect". The first "had" is imperfectum or preteritum depending on which kind of grammar you've learnt; the second one is perfectum. The first "had" is a so called "help verb" to the second, because in English both the imperfectum and the perfectum form of "have" is "had". In Swedish the first "had" would be "hade" and the second" haft", together "hade haft", which is plusquamperfectum or, shorter, pluperfect. It's just unusual to use that form in English but not impossible.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #95 on: May 21, 2007, 01:14:11 AM »
"You had had" is plusquamperfectum, "pluperfect". The first "had" is imperfectum or preteritum depending on which kind of grammar you've learnt; the second one is perfectum. The first "had" is a so called "help verb" to the second, because in English both the imperfectum and the perfectum form of "have" is "had". In Swedish the first "had" would be "hade" and the second" haft", together "hade haft", which is plusquamperfectum or, shorter, pluperfect. It's just unusual to use that form in English but not impossible.

I'm hoping that you're just high, and making
these words up.

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #96 on: May 21, 2007, 05:20:36 AM »
is it ever appropriate to write you'd had in a sentence?

You’d is the contraction for both “you would” and “you had.”  I can't think of a sentence with "you had had" but if you can think of one, then you could properly use "you'd had" in its place.  If you used "you would had" then you would need a "have" in there, I think, so it would be "you'd have had" as in, "You'd have had a chance in the race, but you pulled your hamstring."




"You had had" is plusquamperfectum, "pluperfect". The first "had" is imperfectum or preteritum depending on which kind of grammar you've learnt; the second one is perfectum. The first "had" is a so called "help verb" to the second, because in English both the imperfectum and the perfectum form of "have" is "had". In Swedish the first "had" would be "hade" and the second" haft", together "hade haft", which is plusquamperfectum or, shorter, pluperfect. It's just unusual to use that form in English but not impossible.

Litigious,  You'd had me at plusquamperfectum.
Misunderstood.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #97 on: May 21, 2007, 05:24:55 AM »
"You had had" is plusquamperfectum, "pluperfect". The first "had" is imperfectum or preteritum depending on which kind of grammar you've learnt; the second one is perfectum. The first "had" is a so called "help verb" to the second, because in English both the imperfectum and the perfectum form of "have" is "had". In Swedish the first "had" would be "hade" and the second" haft", together "hade haft", which is plusquamperfectum or, shorter, pluperfect. It's just unusual to use that form in English but not impossible.

I'm hoping that you're just high, and making
these words up.

No, those are Latin words, that we use in the Swedish school when we learn grammar.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #98 on: May 21, 2007, 05:26:27 AM »
By the way, do you know the ancient Gothic word for "had"? "Habadedeima"8)

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #99 on: May 21, 2007, 05:39:19 AM »
It's really interesting, if you have ethymology as one of your obsessions. In "habadedeima" you can find both the root or branch or what you call the "core" of the word in English for Swedish "hade" ("had") and German "haben" ("have"). The Nordic languages and German have much more in common with the Protogermanic language than English has; the Protogermanic had the ending -an for the infinite form of verbs; only Swedish and German still have traces of that; Swedish verbs still have the "a" and German still has the "n"; English "burn" in the transitive meaning is "bränna" in Swedish and "brennen" in German. In Protogerman the word likely was "brannjan". Got it?  8)

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #100 on: May 21, 2007, 05:41:04 AM »
didn't you understand this:

Quote
Litigious,  You'd had me at plusquamperfectum.
Misunderstood.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #101 on: May 21, 2007, 05:47:57 AM »
Sorry, I was just in a mode of babbling about my language obsession.  8)

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #102 on: May 21, 2007, 05:50:15 AM »
Sorry, I was just in a mode of babbling about my language obsession.  8)
i hear you language iq is at about 200.
Misunderstood.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2007, 06:04:56 AM »
Sorry, I was just in a mode of babbling about my language obsession.  8)
i hear you language iq is at about 200.

It is. But I actually didn't want to brag, I just thought it was fun to tell these things.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Questions for Callaway
« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2007, 06:06:22 AM »
On the other hand my EQ is 67.  :-\