Hello, All.
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
...
Hello, All.
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
...
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)So, if I'm not drunk and in the minds, I can talk about everything
here?
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)if you are a sober[...] ;)
So, if I'm not drunk and in the minds, I can talk about everything
here?
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main
rule. ;-)
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
if you are a sober[...] ;)
I feel my ears hot. ;-)
Hi! Dmitry,
On 02 Dec 18 12:18, alexander koryagin wrote to you:
Hello, All.
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
...
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
Rule #2 - make a mistake and someone will help you. ;-)
Cheers,
Paul.
Where I can find a rules of this echo?
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
Rule #2 - make a mistake and someone will help you. ;-)
Rule #3, if not sober, try to hide it (grin)
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the main rule. ;-)
if you are a sober[...] ;)
I feel my ears hot. ;-)
i was playing off of paul's comment about posting and someone would help... it worked out perfectly, too - =B-)
Rule #3, if not sober, try to hide it (grin)
Oh look! Another ex-spurt! ;)
Well, once I have found the most stupid question asked
on Earth -- to ask a drunken man why he had sat behind
the wheel drunken. ;=)
Well, once I have found the most stupid question asked on Earth --
to ask a drunken man why he had sat behind the wheel drunken. ;=)
That reminds me of an opposite occasion: an ingenious question from
a drunk man to a sober. It happened in the cusp season when late
autumn yields to early winter and the weather is damp, cold, murky,
and depressing because there is no snow yet to amend the early
darkness, the barren trees and bushes, and the general greyness of
the world. It is in such mean weather that my father and his friend
were standing at a bus stop and shivering in the cold when a drunk bedraggled man, probably a bum, accosted them in this respectful
manner: "O fathers!", said he, "what is the time?", to which one
them said it was eight. "Fathers!", said the bedraggled man after a
pause, "it is in the morning or in the evening?"
If you a sober person you are welcomed. It is the
main rule. ;-)
Yes. This echo is run by the Temperance movement.
If you a sober person you are welcomed.
If you a sober person you are welcomed.
Whereas the misisng "are" is probably a blunder I believe the
adjective "welcome" works better in your sentence than the verb or
varbal adjective "welcomed".
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the
difference between "you are welcomed" and "you are
welcome"?
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the difference
between "you are welcomed" and "you are welcome"?
The one relates the actual action of welcoming and the other a
potential readiness thereto. Compare the following sentences:
You are welcomed in my house.
You are welcome in my house.
The first implies that you come regularly and are received well,
and the second indicates the condition that if you come, you shall
be welcome. Its truth value does not depend on whether you come or
not.
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the
difference between "you are welcomed" and "you are
welcome"?
The one relates the actual action of welcoming and the
other a potential readiness thereto. Compare the
following sentences:
=== "The first one relates to..." === and the other is
a potential readiness...
I also collected some information on this issue.
[...]
The adjective "welcome" is actually a _property_ of a
person.
As an adjective "welcome" means that a person (who isNot necessarily.
welcome) is an embodiment of greeting. ;-)
IMHO, "You are welcomed" is legal, means the same, but
more formal.
Look at this article, for instance:
In the sentences "Your thoughts are welcomed" and
"You're welcome," the word "welcome" is being used in
two different ways, as a verb in the first one and as an
adjective in the second.
As a verb, "welcome" means to greet cordially or accept
with pleasure. You might ask your doctor, for instance,
"Do you welcome new patients," and she might reply,
"Yes, I welcome them" or "Yes, new patients are
welcomed."
Similarly, when you say, "Your thoughts are welcomed,"
you're using "welcome" as a verb (a past participle in
this case). On the other hand, in sentences like
"I felt welcome" or "He's welcome to visit" or "The rain
was welcome" or "She gave welcome advice," the word is
an adjective meaning received gladly or giving pleasure.
It's this adjectival sense that we use when we say
"You're welcome" in reply to "Thank you."
Dictionaries don't usually define the adjective
"welcome" in this idiomatic usage. The Oxford English
Dictionary, for example, describes "You're welcome"
simply as "a polite formula used in response to an
expression of thanks."
P.S.: Your English seems is improving :-)
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the difference between
"you are welcomed" and "you are welcome"?
;)
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the difference
between
"you are welcomed" and "you are welcome"?
as i understand it, just like seeing one deer or many deer, welcome
is also the past tense of welcome but then that may depend on
context as i remember a book containing a passage similar to "he
was welcomed at the gates of the city"... possibly it has to do
with noun vs verb vs adjective usage?
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+welcome
maybe the above google dictionary definition helps?
as i understand it, just like seeing one deer or many
deer, welcome is also the past tense of welcome
but then that may depend on context as i remember a book
containing a passage similar to "he was welcomed at the
gates of the city"... possibly it has to do with noun vs
verb vs adjective usage?
If we consider the adjective I liked the most "welcome ==
gladly wanted".
BTW, it is a hummer time to ask here where is the difference
between "you are welcomed" and "you are welcome"?
The one relates the actual action of welcoming and the other a
potential readiness thereto. Compare the following sentences:
=== "The first one relates to..." === and the other is
a potential readiness...
Even though my sentence may be ungrammatical, I disagree with your corrections. I did mean the transitive form of "relate", and elided
it in the second clause, cf. Roger Bacon's "Reading maketh a full
man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man."
I also collected some information on this issue.
[...]
The adjective "welcome" is actually a _property_ of a person.
On the contrary, it denotes the attude of another party toward that person.
As an adjective "welcome" means that a person (who is welcome) isNot necessarily.
an embodiment of greeting.
IMHO, "You are welcomed" is legal, means the same, but more
formal.
Certainly not. It means somebody has welcomed me, regardless of my amiability.
It's this adjectival sense that we use when we say "You'reIndeed, and "welcomed" would be rather awkward!
welcome" in reply to "Thank you."
Dictionaries don't usually define the adjective "welcome" in thisAnother good alternative interpretation of this "welcome",
idiomatic usage. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example,
describes "You're welcome" simply as "a polite formula used in
response to an expression of thanks."
because "come" is also the perfect aspect of "to come".
P.S.: Your English seems is improving
If we consider the adjective I liked the most "welcome == gladly
wanted".
I diagree. "You are wecome" means that if you come I shall be glad
to have you as a guest, or, on other words, I should be glad to
have you as a guest. It does not express a want or desire.
Are you a programmer in one of those languages where equality is illogically denoted by a double equals sign because the single one
is, absurdly, reserved for assignment?
Are you a programmer in one of those languages where
equality is illogically denoted by a double equals sign
because the single one is, absurdly, reserved for
assignment?
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them
vice versa? ;=)
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them
vice versa? ;=)
It happened in the cusp season when late autumn yields
to early winter and the weather is damp, cold, murky,
I heard in this context about "we are on the cusp of
winter season". Not sure about "cusp season".
Are you a programmer in one of those languages where equality is
illogically denoted by a double equals sign because the single
one is, absurdly, reserved for assignment?
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them vice
versa? ;=)
Surely not.
Actually C++ has a big two symbols operator group: ==,
!=, +=, &=, ^=, |= etc
We can write:
If(a == b && b!= c) a = c;
Actually C++ has a big two symbols operator group: ==,!=, +=, &=,
^=, |= etc We can write:
If(a == b && b!= c) a = c;
It plain C.
But the equality and assignment confusion is easily amended with
the mathematical assignment operator: = that is also beautifully
parallel with the compund operators:
a := b;
a += b;
a *= b;
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them vice
versa? ;=)
Since the apodosis is in the subjunctive ("would" is the past tense
of "will"), the protais must be in the past tense ("used").
Are you a programmer in one of those languages where equality is illogically denoted by a double equals sign because the single one is, absurdly, reserved for assignment?
Are you a programmer in one of those languages where
equality is illogically denoted by a double equals sign
because the single one is, absurdly, reserved for
assignment?
don't forget the one(s) with '===' and '====' :lol:
C has already died.
It is too obsolete to be in use.
C++ has replaced it.
The matter IMHO is that the assignment operator "=" is
the most frequent operator in C++.
So it is was a sound idea to make it so short.
Besides, ":=b" looks like a fidonet smiley with the
tongue out of the mouth. :=b
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them
vice versa? ;=)
Hey, Ardith! ;-) After "if" I used a simple future time
-- why not? I don't want to use the subjunctive mood in
both clauses.
C has already died.The rumours of its death are greatly exagerrated. It is one of the
most used languages with nary an alternative for embedded systems.
Some major PC projects are developed in C: GIMP, DarkTable, Git,
NetPBM (for which I have written several tools).
It is too obsolete to be in use.Why? Although Modula and Pascal are much better languages, they are
not nearly as popular...
C++ has replaced it.
C++ cannot replace C because it is a totally different language
with an opposite ideology. C is a small, simple and minimalistic procedural language, whereas C++ is a huge, heavy and bloated object-oriented and multi-paradigm monster.
The matter IMHO is that the assignment operator "=" is the mostSeems true.
frequent operator in C++.
So it is was a sound idea to make it so short.
I think that disciplied programmers have long ago agreed that
readability is preferable to the utter paranoid brevity, so that
the atoi() function would be better named as strtoint(), for
example.
Code is read much more frequently than it is modified, and
modification itself requires extensive reading.
Besides, ": =b" looks like a fidonet smiley with the tongue out of
the mouth.: =b
Do not cramp the operator and operands together, use whitespace,
e.g.: a: = b;
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them
vice versa? ;=)
Since the apodosis is in the subjunctive|AKA the main clause or consequent clause
("would" is the past tense of "will"),|protasis
the protais must be in the past tense ("used").
Do you think it would be more logical if we use them vice
versa? ;=)
Since the apodosis is in the subjunctive ("would" is the
past tense of "will"), the protais must be in the past
tense ("used").
Hey, Ardith! ;-) After "if" I used a simple future time
-- why not? I don't want to use the subjunctive mood in
both clauses.
Rule #3, if not sober, try to hide it (grin)
Rule #3, if not sober, try to hide it (grin)
Rule #4, if you can't hide it and have hurt anyone with
your words, explain him/her that your words were
misunderstood because of your bad knowledge or English :)
Happy New Year, by the way!
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 47:48:27 |
| Calls: | 2,118 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
319 files (12,202K bytes) |
| Messages: | 952,777 |