Recent comments in /f/ask
twovests wrote
Reply to comment by devtesla in what posting vibes do you think you embody? by flabberghaster
big if true
twovests wrote
Reply to comment by Presidential_Afro in Let's have a Controversial Opinions thread (yes, for real) by Moonside
found this thread 7 years late and i still miss your posts and opinions
wouldn't you know it, twitter got even worse!
flabberghaster wrote
Reply to comment by devtesla in if the one ring is so good how come there's no the two ring? by hollyhoppet
But they were both of them deceived! Ha ha. The fellas get it.
cowloom wrote
Because the bug fixes weren't big enough to warrant a major version increment
Introducing the 1.1 ring
voxpoplar wrote
the poo ring
devtesla wrote
there is a two ring it's called marrage
twovests wrote
It's not B)
oolong wrote
two ring or not two ring, that is the question
cowloom wrote
drink some WATER
oolong wrote
why not market it with extra virgin essence of purified dog honey extract
devtesla wrote
I know a couple things you shouldn't do
emma wrote
juicero.ai is available.
SWORDSCROSSED wrote
That's crazy. I don't even know what that means
cowloom wrote
suddenly having cravings for croutons
SWORDSCROSSED wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
devtesla wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
very carefully
oolong wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
put conductive thread on the very tip then swipe to type
rain wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
With your nose? (Or maybe your toes!)
flabberghaster wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
the same way homestar picks things up without arms
neku wrote
Reply to how do you type with boxing gloves on? by missingno
big keyboard
twovests wrote
Reply to comment by flabberghaster in Is this a new speech construction? It feels off to me. But I keep hearing it especially in the last couple of years. by flabberghaster
So I don't know grammar good enough to know what a clause is, and I grew up where people didn't always speak "standard" english in the first place, so grain of salt, but it sounds fine to me.
I'd say "where we know them from" but that only sounds a smidge more standard
flabberghaster OP wrote
Reply to comment by twovests in Is this a new speech construction? It feels off to me. But I keep hearing it especially in the last couple of years. by flabberghaster
The full context of the first was like "It gives us the same strange out of place feeling as when we see an actor who we can't quite place how we know them."
The second clause describing the actor feels redundant to me, it feels very awkward. Having the pronoun for the same subject in there feels weird. "An actor that ..." Means that ... Is specifically referring to the actor. Then we have "... we don't know where we know them" feels like a whole new sentence with its own subject and object. It feels unrelated to me. The them is redundant, to me.
flabberghaster OP wrote
Reply to comment by SWORDSCROSSED in Is this a new speech construction? It feels off to me. But I keep hearing it especially in the last couple of years. by flabberghaster
Yeah I edited it. I messed that up. I changed it to "a type of fruit that we don't know where is from"
Is that any less ungrammatical to your ear?
Dogmantra wrote
Reply to Is this a new speech construction? It feels off to me. But I keep hearing it especially in the last couple of years. by flabberghaster
I think this has existed for a while, at least when I do it it mostly comes from restructuring the sentence halfway through, yknow when you start going without knowing exactly how you're going to finish?
e.g. in your examples, it would be "a type of fruit that [pause] we don't know where it comes from"
twovests wrote
Reply to comment by hollyhoppet in what posting vibes do you think you embody? by flabberghaster
evergreen holly truths