I don't think that's an accurate summation. If someone said "He showed her around in the ship" it would sound like a trafficking scheme of some sorts. Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47Spoiler:He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.shimobaatar wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020 21:38This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.
He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.
Yes, that's why I posted the question.
He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.
He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.
In German, there is "Er zeigte ihr das Schiff".
(EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I don't think that's an accurate summation. If someone said "He showed her around in the ship" it would sound like a trafficking scheme of some sorts. Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.
Spoiler:
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
That's how a non-native could interpret that sentences.
That's what was intented.Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I would understand what someone meant by "in the ship", but I stand by what I said about it not quite sounding right to me, personally.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.shimobaatar wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020 21:38This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.
He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.
As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47Yes, that's why I posted the question.
He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.
He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.
In German, there is "Er zeigte ihr das Schiff".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
"in the ship" made me think of spaceships. Maybe submarines would also use it, but for me the use of "in" implies a ship that fully encloses the adventurers like a spaceship would.
Makapappi nauppakiba.
The wolf-sheep ate itself. (Play)
The wolf-sheep ate itself. (Play)
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
As I said, I've used Leo:shimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
to pass sth. ⇔ around
but this is only applicable for things. The other possibility is just
to show so. round
Non of them is declared dialectal. This could also be a typo.
The other translations don't apply, as they use a different verb, which is not what I wanted.
A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively. And to me, it's definitely "show around", not "show round". In fact, saying "show round" makes it much more likely, to me, that the 'parade or exhibit' sense is meant.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:44As I said, I've used Leoshimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
On which note: yes, "show around in" can trigger that meaning too. But at least IMD, it's wrong to say it simply denotes that meaning. For instance, if I say "I showed her around in London", I probably don't mean that I'm exhibiting her (although I could mean that). Likewise if I "show him around in the new office". For me, the main difference there with the non-'in' version is that a) as I say, I'm engaging in a period of an activity, and b) I probably haven't completed the task. For instance, showing someone around in London can last as long as that someone is in London; but showing someone around London would take a very long time, because there's a lot of London! [also, 'show around in' has a more deferential connotation for me. If I show somone around in London, I'm probably, as it were, following them holding their bags and pointing out interesting things, whereas if I show them around London I'm arriving with a schedule and a route map...]
And FWIW, the exhibition sense can also occur even without 'in' - I can, for instance, show a picture of a cat around the office...
That's not how English works, I'm afraid, at least IMD. If there's a boat without a deck, you're probably 'in' it. If there's a ship with a deck, you're probably 'on' it, even below decks. Likewise, you're probably on a submarine rather than in it, wherever the submarine is (and a submarine, though enclosed, is technically a boat, not a ship).A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
The two issues here are that:
- English 'in' doesn't require enclosure, and is often used not only when the item is not enclosed, but even when it protrudes from the thing it's 'in'. Thus I can sit in a boat or stand in a puddle or walk in a valley, and a plug can be in the socket, or even in the wall, and a mouse can be in my hand - and I can even specifically hold a mouse in the palm of my hand, even if the palm itself is almost flat.
- English 'on' is often used with verbs of station or appointment, and therefore is often used with vehicles, regardless of the topology. I'm usually on the train, not in it, and likewise I'm usually on a ship, not in it. Similarly on a plane or on a spaceship. In fact, I usually WOULDN'T use plain 'on' for the cases you're talking about, but rather "on top of" or "on the surface of", although plain 'on' works with certain verbs (particularly 'standing' - sitting on a plane is usually inside, standing on a plane suggests outside, though either can mean the other depending on context).
This presumption in favour of 'on' fails when the vehicle is less like a public area - that is, when it's smaller or less public. So although I travel ON the bus (train, plane, etc), I travel IN the car, even though both are equally enclosing. [if I'm the driver, however, I suspect I drive to London in the bus, rather than on it - I think only passengers are on it. But I've never asked a bus driver, so I don't really know what they'd say]. And although I go to Spain ON the cruise liner (deep in the bowels of the ship never seeing sunlight), I cross the lake IN the rowing boat (with no deck and with the gunwhales at knee level). However, if you're sufficiently obviously right on top of it, it becomes OK to say 'on' again - I complete the rally IN the car, and probably IN the dune buggy, but ON the quadbike or ON the motorbike.
With ships, trains, planes, spacecraft, etc, "in" can be used, but usually conveys something different - it suggests you're not, as it were, occupying a place on the vehicle on its normal journey. The commuter gets ON the train, but the bomb disposal expert sometimes gets IN the train (though they can also get ON it). The engineer might be working IN the ship in the dock, whereas working ON the ship might suggest they were travelling with it. [and that's a bad example because WORK ON is a phrasal verb in its own right - you can work on the ship whether you're on it, in it, or even (if you're working on the computer system) nowhere near it).
Anyway, introductory guides might say that "in" means "inside", and "on" means "on top of" or "on the surface of", but in reality the meaning of both plain prepositions is rather wider than those simplifications would suggest...
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
If this online dictionary is going to be treated as the highest authority in the end, then I'm afraid I don't see the point in asking for input from native speakers in a thread like this.Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 17:09I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:44As I said, I've used Leoshimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
For me, "show around" means something along the lines of to lead someone, showing them various things at a location, while "show round" means something along the lines of leading someone so that they're being shown to other people, e.g. to be introduced.
As for "in a boat" vs. "on a boat", I'd say "on a boat" if your general location is "a boat", and you're free to move around within it (so, as Sal said, you're "on the boat", even if it's on an interior deck, and the same for a submarine or a plane), while "in a boat" would mean, hmmm, more some nook or cranny within the boat, some sort of baggage hold or even within a wall (physically within the "bowels of the ship"). Cars are different, though, and you sit in a car (if you're on a car you'd be on top of it, but to occupy the same position in relation to a train I'd say you were on top of a train, as Sal says). Then again, yeah, you drive in a bus, but you go on the bus (similarly, you fly in a plane if you're the pilot, but on the plane if your the passenger, so maybe there's an agency aspect to it as well).
As for "in a boat" vs. "on a boat", I'd say "on a boat" if your general location is "a boat", and you're free to move around within it (so, as Sal said, you're "on the boat", even if it's on an interior deck, and the same for a submarine or a plane), while "in a boat" would mean, hmmm, more some nook or cranny within the boat, some sort of baggage hold or even within a wall (physically within the "bowels of the ship"). Cars are different, though, and you sit in a car (if you're on a car you'd be on top of it, but to occupy the same position in relation to a train I'd say you were on top of a train, as Sal says). Then again, yeah, you drive in a bus, but you go on the bus (similarly, you fly in a plane if you're the pilot, but on the plane if your the passenger, so maybe there's an agency aspect to it as well).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Yes, I interpreted those 4 sentences in the same way as you did, as a native speaker though bilingual.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.
He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.
He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.
He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.
However, your further explanations are too technical to be used irl tbh.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6358
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
any triple-S a priori language Conlanger must regret it...
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
No, that would make no sense. That would obviously be a pandademic. A sudden proliferation of pans, or of manifestations of the Great God Pan, would however be called 'pandemics'.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑14 Mar 2020 18:16 Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Could a pandemic be half-human, half-chimp -- a humanzee, perhaps?
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
This may be a newbie question, but...
...does anyone know where I can find approximate bore dimensions for reed instruments?
Lengths I can find, though not always easy. And I've found some clarinet diameter comparisons somewhere.
But conical bores? Almost nothing. I think I found something on saxophone conicity, but what about oboe conicity? Which is more conic: an oboe or a bassoon? Where does a heckelphone fit (I think a Heckelphone has twice the cross-sectional area of a bass oboe, but I'm not certain, and not sure how that compares to a bassoon). And as for shawms, what's going on there? Some people say that shawm bores were parabolic, but I can't find any more detailed description of that...
It's not important, it's just personal curiosity, but it's vexxing that this infomation isn't more widely available!
...does anyone know where I can find approximate bore dimensions for reed instruments?
Lengths I can find, though not always easy. And I've found some clarinet diameter comparisons somewhere.
But conical bores? Almost nothing. I think I found something on saxophone conicity, but what about oboe conicity? Which is more conic: an oboe or a bassoon? Where does a heckelphone fit (I think a Heckelphone has twice the cross-sectional area of a bass oboe, but I'm not certain, and not sure how that compares to a bassoon). And as for shawms, what's going on there? Some people say that shawm bores were parabolic, but I can't find any more detailed description of that...
It's not important, it's just personal curiosity, but it's vexxing that this infomation isn't more widely available!
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6358
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thank you, Salmoneus and Khemehekis!
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
-
- mongolian
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
- Location: California über alles
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
You're welcome!
♂♥♂♀
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels
My Kankonian-English dictionary: 92,000 words and counting
31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
-
- rupestrian
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 09 Jul 2019 19:15
- Location: Canada
Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Good morning everyone, does anyone know if the Conlangio app/project is still up somewhere? The website seems to be down. There do not seem to be many mobile app options for conlanging.
Give me oil in my lamp, I pray.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6358
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Serbian “Red Rubber Ball”?
In the Serbian movie “Technotise: Edit and I”, there is a song to the tune of the Cyrkle’s* “Red Rubber Ball”.
I don’t speak the language and they didn’t provide subtitles for the song.
Does anyone know anything about it?
Is it actually a Serbian translation of the Cyrkle’s lyrics* or is it completely different?
Who is the woman singing it?
*
I don’t speak the language and they didn’t provide subtitles for the song.
Does anyone know anything about it?
Is it actually a Serbian translation of the Cyrkle’s lyrics* or is it completely different?
Who is the woman singing it?
*
Edit: *The Cyrkles were the first to record it. It was actually co-written by Paul Simon, and by The Seekers’ Bruce Woodley. April 1966 according to Wikipedia.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6358
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Politically Motivated Sound-Changes?
We have a thread for Phonetically-Motivated Sound-Changes.
Is there enough data to start a thread for Politically-Motivated Sound-Changes?
Or would that be mostly speculation?
Is there enough data to start a thread for Politically-Motivated Sound-Changes?
Or would that be mostly speculation?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml