(ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Discussions regarding actual culture and history of Earth.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7162
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lambuzhao » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 14:17

There is a preponderance of evidence (archaeological, genetic, some linguistic) that point to an Out of Africa hypothesis for ANATOMICALLY MODERN humans.

There is also growing body of archaeological and now genetic evidence that supports that PRE-MODERN hominin emigrations (i.e. Neanderthal, Denisovan) occurred out of Africa as well, antedating that of our direct ancestors. Ironically, I recently happened to be reading about Denisovan genetic markers that were found in both the genomes of those Siberian skeletons, and also present in some modern human outlier populations in East and South Asia. Kewl. [B)]

This bloke needs to separate those strands, because he seems to be conflating them, which makes his argument whiff of bowel at the very least.

Furthermore, recent genetic studies of human genomes and recovered genetic materials of those Denisovans and Neanderthals seems to show that not only do we have some genetic material shared with them in a hybrid sort of way, but that certain Neanderthal skeletons and the Siberian Denisovans also show different hybridized genetic markers, that detail how hybridization occured differently between both subspecies at different times.

Well, it just goes to show how during those long, long, long 3 dire wolf winter nights, we still managed to get our collective freak on with whomever we could find, while bat-bugs dropped from the cave-ceilings, bedding down with us, and slowly became bedbugs. God, I hate bedbugs.




At least as important, does this bloke have a well-thought out, logical alternative? Out of North America? Out of extra-terrestrial spaceships? Out of a Planet of the Apes style apocalypse where we triumphed over our sentient dinosauroid experimentors? Pointing at lacunæ in the evidence and crying foul is not exactly the same as constructing an evidence-based counter-proposal. Where’s the counter-proposal? What then is the alternative? If none, then it's just chicken-shit argumentum gratia argumenti (ad absurdum), which I learned in college to avoid like the plague, because frankly, I had better things to do, like talk to that cutie over there, or actually get that 20-page research paper on precedents to the Catullan use of mentula done, finally ...


As for belief. I believe that “believe” is a thorny, thought-provoking word. It’s pregnant with divergent meanings. If it’s your opinion, opine it. If you deem or judge it to be true, we have those words, too. But if by faith you trow and swear, well, you’ll have to believe it, or not. But you don’t have to trust my judgement, or even judge my trustment on the matter. Fides et Facta: odi et amo vos ambōs. You can believe what you will, but I believe wholeheartedly in my beliefs regarding belief, and I am unanimous in this, believe you me.
:wat:
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 15:31

Lambuzhao wrote: Furthermore, recent genetic studies of human genomes and recovered genetic materials of those Denisovans and Neanderthals seems to show that not only do we have some genetic material shared with them in a hybrid sort of way, but that certain Neanderthal skeletons and the Siberian Denisovans also show different hybridized genetic markers, that detail how hybridization occured differently between both subspecies at different times.

Well, it just goes to show how during those long, long, long 3 dire wolf winter nights, we still managed to get our collective freak on with whomever we could find, while bat-bugs dropped from the cave-ceilings, bedding down with us, and slowly became bedbugs. God, I hate bedbugs.
The interesting here is that it's not clear that "we" did that. Because although there seems to have been extensive genetic material from male neanderthals and denisovans (and iirc at least one other species), there is no sign of mitochondrial DNA from those other people - in other words, all our non-human DNA comes from women having sex with non-humans.

Logically, there are three main reasons why this might be:
- all societies in those days were matrilocal. Children of female neanderthals all lived with their mothers, and went extent with them. This is plausible... except that it's hard to believe that no half-humans ever thought "hey, our tribe is almost extinct, maybe I should see if my dad's tribe will take me in!" - although of course maybe future research will show that this did happen once or twice. Given that the relevant human populations were all exterminated, twice, it's possible that small signals may have gotten lost.
- interbreeding was only biologically viable in one direction. This does happen, and is hard to predict. On the other hand, it's not clear why it would happen in this case, and why it would be the same direction with both Denisovans and Neanderthals. After all, it's a matter of controversy whether these people were even a different species in the first place, or just a subspecies. And given that the breeding in one direction seems to have been thoroughly viable, why would it be complete unviable in the other direction?
- men didn't find big hairy neanderthal girls sexy... but women did find big hairy neanderthal boys very sexy.

The same pattern, interestingly, is repeated in Europe thousands of years later, when the neolithics conquered the mesolithics. Although the neolithics were clearly the dominant race in population and technology, as time goes one we see more and more influence from mesolithic DNA, but again mostly via male mesolithics and female neolithics (though it's not as absolute as with human/neanderthal). We're used to the pattern of a dominant race invading and marrying all the local women (c.f. the kurgan invasions a few millennia later, which influenced paternal dna much more than maternal dna), but what seems to have happened there is women from the dominant group preferring men from the subordinate group...
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lao Kou » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 17:14

Salmoneus wrote:men didn't find big hairy neanderthal girls sexy... but women did find big hairy neanderthal boys very sexy.
Easy to understand. [xP]
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:20

Salmoneus wrote:blah-blah
:roll:
I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to just invent new meanings for words and then insist that everybody else use them (and this isn't the first time). For instance: "belief: mental acceptance of a claim as likely true" (wiktionary).
Believe:

1. To accept as true, particularly without absolute certainty (emph. mine)
2. To accept that someone is telling the truth (again, without much in the way of hard data)
3. To have religious faith; to believe in a greater truth

Etymologically, the sense is one of confidence, trust and faith.

Again, I don't "believe" in Evolutionary theory any more than I do in any other scientific theory. What part of def. 1 is so difficult to grasp?

I know & understand them to be true and accept them to be as truly confirmed as modern science can do).

Understand:

1. to perceive the meaning, nature, or significance of
2. to know well the ways, nature, and workings of
6. to accept as fact
7. to grasp the reason or logic behind (something)

Accept:

3. to regard as valid or correct

Myeh. Whatevs.

I believe I'll just leave you at that!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:22

Lao Kou wrote:
elemtilas wrote:Anymore we've got wonderful sleek, eager looking & keen-eyed befeathered animals in great variety of form, coloration and habitat.
I know we've already talked this to death, but I still find this use of "anymore" jarring. [;)]
And I do believe I continue to fail to comprehend what's so jarring about it! :mrgreen:
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 20:25

elemtilas wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:blah-blah
:roll:
I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to just invent new meanings for words and then insist that everybody else use them (and this isn't the first time). For instance: "belief: mental acceptance of a claim as likely true" (wiktionary).
Believe:

1. To accept as true, particularly without absolute certainty (emph. mine)

Again, I don't "believe" in Evolutionary theory.

I know & understand them to be true.

Accept:

3. to regard as valid or correct
If you "know" something to be true then you do indeed "regard [it] as correct", hence you accept it as true, hence you believe it, by the definitions you yourselve have just outlain.

[And no, you do not 'know' that evolution is true, and you certainly do not 'know' this with 'absolute certainty', that's just delusional.]
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 21:06

Salmoneus wrote:If you "know" something to be true then you do indeed "regard [it] as correct",
yep

hence you accept it as true,
yep
hence you believe it,
nope

Here, you take what I've said just a little too far. And I apologise in advance if I ever made myself unclear. Of course, if you want to believe in Evolution, that's fine! If that's where you put your faith, then I respect that. Just respect that I do not put my faith in matters of science.
by the definitions you yourselve have just outlain.
The definitions I laid out point to acceptance based on fact & data rather than belief based on faith.
And no, you do not 'know' that evolution is true, and you certainly do not 'know' this with 'absolute certainty', that's just delusional.]
Indeed not! I know only it is as confirmed as science can make it, at this point. We can see it in action in the lab. We can see it in action in past history through the evidence of fossils, anatomy and embryology. I'm not trained as a scientist, so I can only review the data, study the theory and accept or reject the interpretation. The evidence points towards acceptance. No faith involved. No matter for belief.

Now, I believe that Evolution is the means through which Man was made and is being brought up and perfected, throughout the long course of ever older ancestral animals all the way back to the first cellular life on Earth, and likely further back into the primordial soups before and perhaps even beyond the confines of this planet, by our Creator.

Now, if you can show me the evidence, in any standard peer reviewed scientific journal, that someone has at last connected Evolution with God, then I'll be happy to say that I no longer believe in Evolution as the means of Man's creation, but will accept and understand that as factual and know it as as confirmed as scientifically possible. Until then, this remains a matter of faith without evidence, belief without proof.

And that's where we stand, really.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 01:57

elemtilas wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:If you "know" something to be true then you do indeed "regard [it] as correct",
yep

hence you accept it as true,
yep
hence you believe it,
nope

Here, you take what I've said just a little too far. And I apologise in advance if I ever made myself unclear. Of course, if you want to believe in Evolution, that's fine! If that's where you put your faith, then I respect that. Just respect that I do not put my faith in matters of science.
by the definitions you yourselve have just outlain.
The definitions I laid out point to acceptance based on fact & data rather than belief based on faith.
a) acceptance of a proposition as true is belief in a proposition, that's what "belief" means;
b) you said this yourself: "believe: 1. to accept as true".

You're presumably going to say "ah, but look at that 'particularly without absolute certainty" clause. But a) 'X, particularly Y' means all X, just prototypically those that are Y - it does not mean only Y; and b) you yourself just admitted that you did not have absolute certainty in evolution.

You say that you accept the truth of evolution without absolute certainty. You say that accepting something as true without absolute certainty is believing it. Therefore by your own definitions you believe the theory of evolution. So are you just trolling? Because if not it seems a truly Trumpian ability to ignore what you yourself have said from one sentence to the next.

Of course, even if your definitions weren't incorrect and hypocritical, you'd still be behaving like an arsehole in demanding aggressively that everybody else in the world abide your definitions, because the definitions used by the other 99% of the population, including experts in the field, are all "loose". I mean, we can't stop you from using the words to mean whatever the hell you want to use them to mean, but we can draw the line when you try to impose that nonsense on the rest of us, let alone when you try to gaslight the rest of us into believing we've somehow been wrong all along to use words in their normal sense.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 04:05

Salmoneus wrote:Of course, even if your definitions weren't incorrect and hypocritical, you'd still be behaving like an arsehole in demanding aggressively that everybody else in the world abide your definitions,
Here is really the only pertinent part of your response, and the only bit actually worth replying to.

This is one of the things I find mildly amusing about our interactions. You make these accusations about other people that are, quite simply, falsehoods. I am certain I said something along the lines of the usage being "loose". You chose to take it to the wrong conclusion. You chose to shovel that molehill into a mountain. You chose to make the false accusations.

So, I'll ask you again, just like I did before: show me where I ever "demanded" (aggressively or otherwise) you (or anyone else) do anything my way. Or any one way, for that matter. Really, I frankly don't care how you use the word "believe". It was a minor point of contention that I stand by, but really wasn't worth your reply, and particularly in the manner you replied!

And now, sir, I think it's high time we both have a nice warm cup o tea and a bit of a relax. I'll take to heart some very sage advice that I found over on ZBB and bid you adieu until you have another go:

A small tip, for here and elsewhere online: when someone is an arse to you, just move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz1N8W8phec
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Xonen » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 09:30

elemtilas wrote:So, I'll ask you again, just like I did before: show me where I ever "demanded" (aggressively or otherwise) you (or anyone else) do anything my way.
Well, you did specifically point out someone else's "incorrect" use of the word (twice), and have kept trying to argue that your idiosyncratic usage is somehow more correct than the established one. And you've been doing it in a way that seems deliberately annoying (for starters, quoting someone's entire post as "blah-blah", responding to it with " :roll: ", and then proceeding to pretty much ignore its contents). So if not quite "aggressively demanding", you are at least... provocatively instructing, or something. Although I'm not sure this discussion really needs any more quibbling with semantics.
User avatar
shanoxilt
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon 30 May 2016, 05:51

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shanoxilt » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 10:22

I find it ironic that there is so much language policing on a site about linguistic creativity.

(And that's before we get to the issue of amateur analytic philosophy in this discussion.)
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Lao Kou » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 11:02

shanoxilt wrote:I find it ironic that there is so much language policing on a site about linguistic creativity.
No irony at all. Folks here are sensitive to language (which you might expect in such a place -- and I certainly wouldn't call it policing). We can talk up a storm about how we pronounce "cat". Occasional forays into the philosophical are because people sometimes don't remember the dinner party rule of not mentioning religion or politics (which may make it interesting, if tense -- may I have some more of that absolutely luscious chutney, please?).
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 17:46

shanoxilt wrote:(And that's before we get to the issue of amateur analytic philosophy in this discussion.)
It's not "amateur" in Sal's case, though. He's a philosophy graduate, after all.

BTW, Polish seems to have two separate words for Sal's understanding of "belief" ("przekonanie"), and for elemtilas' definition ("wierzenie").
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 18:32

Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:So, I'll ask you again, just like I did before: show me where I ever "demanded" (aggressively or otherwise) you (or anyone else) do anything my way.
Well, you did specifically point out someone else's "incorrect" use of the word (twice),
Okay. Let's be crystal clear here. This is what I said: "But I'm just quibbling with the loose usage of 'believe'."

To which Salmoneus replied "I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to just invent new meanings for words ... It's particularly irritating to be, collectively, blasted for "loose" use of language as a philosophy graduate."
and have kept trying to argue that your idiosyncratic usage is somehow more correct than the established one.
Okay, I don't see where's I've been "arguing" that my usage is in some way "more correct" , but please show me where I've done that.

And how is it idiosyncratic? Belief in the unknown (and sometimes unknowable) is what sets people of faith apart from everyone else. I understand that well enough. In my experience, belief in things for which there is no physical evidence or scientific confirmation is rather distinct from the acceptance of those things science has provided evidence for. I also understand that "belief" can be used, loosely in my opinion, for a number of other kinds of intellectual acceptance. In other words, I am not and have never said that Salmoneus's usage is "incorrect". I do however stand by the assertion that he could have been more precise & accurate by using a clearer term. No big deal, really.

Apart from rolling my eyes at Sal's over-reaction, and at the risk of continuing with this drawn-out overreaction myself, all I did subsequently is quote back the same dictionary he used. I'm not the one who ventured into ad hominem or outright falsehood to make my point. But I wasn't aware that I am no longer allowed to offer the merest slight of disagreement or exasperation against one of our high and mighty MVPs. Or do we still have freedoms of expression here?
And you've been doing it in a way that seems deliberately annoying (for starters, quoting someone's entire post as "blah-blah", responding to it with " :roll: ", and then proceeding to pretty much ignore its contents). So if not quite "aggressively demanding", you are at least... provocatively instructing, or something. Although I'm not sure this discussion really needs any more quibbling with semantics.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Quid pro quo. Tit for tat.

Salmoneus has most decidedly proven himself to be an ill-tempered and boorish member of this forum. Even back as far as I have had experience here a little over two years ago. His first interaction with me was almost word-for-word the same baseless accusations of "demands" and insistence that people do things my way only. That's stuff and nonsense. Xonen, whether those in authority will deal with his attitude and style of interaction or whether they will choose to ignore it, I do have the right to reply to this kind of nonsense & I don't care if he's Plato reincarnated. If I feel that he deserves a relatively mild-mannered " :roll: ", well, so be it. I am fully confident that someone who has a long standing record of needlessly bad behaviour can handle a little yellow emoticon from time to time.


I'll happily settle for "provocatively responding", though. I don't pretend to "instruct". I offer my opinion, as that's what this forum is all about. And, for that matter, I don't need him to "instruct" me on what's going on in my own head. I know the difference between believing a thing, taking it on faith and accepting it as a matter of creed versus accepting the truth of a thing, taking it on reasoned & weighed evidence.

Can we just drop it now, and get back to that chutney?

I'd much rather see Salmoneus exercise his keen intellect on the topic at hand (Ahzoh's query re Manson & OOA Theory) than wasting it on a battle nobody can win over semantics and usage.
gestaltist wrote:BTW, Polish seems to have two separate words for Sal's understanding of "belief" ("przekonanie"), and for elemtilas' definition ("wierzenie").
Right: thanks for that! Mental acceptance of a claim as truth vs. credence, faith, belief.

You say przekonanie, and I say wierzenie; let's call the whole thing off!

Some notes on "belief", just so we can at least be somewhere in the same book, if not on the same page:

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_faith.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Christianity

Particularly the bit around "We believe", says the Vatican Council (III, iii), "that revelation is true, not indeed because the intrinsic truth of the mysteries is clearly seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Who reveals them, for He can neither deceive nor be deceived." --- when someone says scientists "believe" in Evolutionary Theory or that they "believe" grass is green, my natural instinct is to wonder "really? God revealed to you that grass is green. Mmkay....." Also see under Noetic Faculty & Faith as a Gift of God.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Xonen » Sun 15 Jan 2017, 22:57

elemtilas wrote:
Xonen wrote:
elemtilas wrote:So, I'll ask you again, just like I did before: show me where I ever "demanded" (aggressively or otherwise) you (or anyone else) do anything my way.
Well, you did specifically point out someone else's "incorrect" use of the word (twice),
Okay. Let's be crystal clear here. This is what I said: "But I'm just quibbling with the loose usage of 'believe'."
Yeah, followed by:
Belief is a matter of reasoned faith. Acceptance of a scientific theory is a matter of gathering and evaluating physical evidence and explaining it within a particular framework (scientific method).
[...]
"Believes" in science. Physical evidence, gathered & studied scientifically, doesn't require "belief". I don't "believe in" Evolution, or Gravitation or Germ Theory for that matter. I accept that evidence collected and studied supports these theories more than it discredits them.
Okay, I don't see where's I've been "arguing" that my usage is in some way "more correct" , but please show me where I've done that.
In your initial post, you noted that you have a "quibble" with Sal's usage of the word "belief" and proceeded to tell us what the word means, which you've then been reiterating in pretty much every single post since. How does this not imply 1) that you had a problem with how the word was used and 2) that you consider the correct definition to be the one you posted? Had you acknowledged right at the outset that you're making a distinction here that most people probably don't, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
And how is it idiosyncratic?
A guy with an actual degree in this stuff has already tried explaining it. I doubt I can do a better job.
Belief in the unknown (and sometimes unknowable) is what sets people of faith apart from everyone else.
IME, people who would sooner die than consider themselves "people of faith" tend to have quite a lot of belief in unknown and sometimes unknowable things; they're just somewhat less... cosmological in nature. But perhaps it's better not to open another can of worms at this point.
I do however stand by the assertion that he could have been more precise & accurate by using a clearer term.
This was in a discussion concerning the beliefs of a third party, who could certainly "not believe" in evolution, whatever definition we use for that word. You're the one who posted in order to advertize the fact that you "don't believe" in it either, but not because you "don't accept it as true" (which would be the normal sense of those words), but because you just happen to disagree with the normal usage of the word.
Or do we still have freedoms of expression here?
You never did. This is a private board, your Freedom can't help you now.
Salmoneus has most decidedly proven himself to be an ill-tempered and boorish member of this forum.
His initial response was perhaps, indeed, needlessly ill-tempered in this particular discussion. However, it was still mainly about the point, and even in subsequent posts, he's been careful enough to attack behavior ("behaving like an arsehole [in this particular matter]") rather than you as a person (or board member). Not ideal behavior on this board, no, but when it's sitting there right next to your deliberate provocation, it's not the first thing that sticks out to my eyes as a mod.
His first interaction with me was almost word-for-word the same baseless accusations of "demands" and insistence that people do things my way only.
Just because you disagree with an accusation doesn't make it baseless. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the way you post to "quibble" with other people's usage of words actually does come across as insistence that others accept your definitions.
Xonen, whether those in authority will deal with his attitude and style of interaction or whether they will choose to ignore it
FYI, we have "dealt" with it, among other things, once or twice. That's neither here nor there right now, though.
I do have the right
Well, no. You don't have a right to troll. If you think someone is overreacting to your post, something along the lines of "whoa, dude, I said it was only a minor quibble" is a lot better than " :roll: ". People can have a wide variety of reasons for appearing angry online, and it's usually best to try de-escalating the situation first. If you immediately resort to something that only serves to make the other party even angrier, you're pretty much giving up on the discussion.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Mon 16 Jan 2017, 00:05

Xonen wrote:...
Replied via PM.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by elemtilas » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 00:52

And to Salmoneus: I apologize that I let you get the better of me this time. I didn't take that sage advice soon enough this time. [:'(] And it's really not worth the negative emotion you spread about, so lesson learned! So, next time, do let's agree to approach each differently and hopefully more constructively! When you see something I say (or that anyone else says) you disagree with, try to respond more constructively next time. I will try also to respond in a more positive fashion. I'll also make an effort to not let things get out of hand at my end.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 09:34

elemtilas wrote:do let's agree
Is this grammatical? I've never seen a "let's" construction with the emphatic "do". L1 speakers?
Keenir
runic
runic
Posts: 2457
Joined: Tue 22 May 2012, 02:05

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Keenir » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 10:18

gestaltist wrote:
elemtilas wrote:do let's agree
Is this grammatical? I've never seen a "let's" construction with the emphatic "do". L1 speakers?
maybe a typo of "so".


(example: when typing this, I initially accidentally typed maybe a typo os so?)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2319
Joined: Sun 24 Jun 2012, 06:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: (ACH) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by clawgrip » Tue 17 Jan 2017, 16:18

Transatlantic confusion strikes again. "Do let's" and "Don't let's" are acceptable in British English (are they normal or a bit stuffy though? British people please elaborate!). I guess it shows the speaker's enthusiasm.
Post Reply