Dripping from aside

[teechar]

That would probably also work, [STRIKE]the term that would fit,[/STRIKE] but I'm interested more in informal terms, expressions, and idioms. When you present information to students, or to people in general, [STRIKE]masses,[/STRIKE] they [STRIKE]more easily grip[/STRIKE][STRIKE] those[/STRIKE] grasp such information more easily/readily if you talk their language- the language of the masses; not strict, formal, or literary. [STRIKE]letarary languge.[/STRIKE]

Help with the text highlighted in green, please.

Does the spell checker work in your browser?

[cross-posted]

 

[Matthew Wai]

We don't put a full stop after an ellipsis.

Is the fourth dot mentioned below a full stop, as it is at the end of a sentence?

Using ellipses is easy: three dots within a sentence, four at the end.

 

[GoesStation]

Is the fourth dot mentioned below a full stop, as it is at the end of a sentence?

Yes. An ellipsis is three dots. When we end a sentence with an elided quote, we add the sentence-ending punctuation after the ellipsis. An ellipsis plus a period ("full stop" in BrE) is indistinguishable from four sequential dots.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Three dots for the elipses. One dot for the period. Four dots total.

... + . = ....

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

We don't put a full stop after an ellipsis....

I do. In fact, I just did!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

GS and emsr, does that mean that there is a difference between American English and British English regarding the three and/or four dots?

Or GS is wrong? (I dare not to say that emsr could be wrong. )

Where I come from, GS is right and emsr is wrong.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Well... I'm in an awkward position now...

But I just remembered that somebody wrote to me a few posts above that there is no need for three dots, since the sentence was finished (like in the first sentence of this post). True, but three dots have one more meaning. Since early 90s, we use three dots in chat(ting) to contextualise pause! So... You know... Pause... Just like when you're talking and making pauses.

(And forum is nothing more then very, very slow good old IRC. )

There are two reasons to use elipses: to show that words have been removed and to look wishy-washy.

 

[SoothingDave]

I don't know the official rule, but I wouldn't end a sentence with 4 periods. In my mind, if a sentence ends with an ellipsis, it is sort of a trailing off thought, something deliberately unfinished.

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

Wikipedia agrees with me on this.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

That's probably also the term that would fit, but I'm interested more in unformal terms, expressions, idioms. When you present information to students or the public*, they more easily grasp that information if you talk their language - the language of the masses, not strict, formal, litarary language.

Help with the green, please?

*I'm not sure what you meant by the masses. In American English, the language of the masses makes sense but sounds a little ideological - not as conversational as something like:

- ordinary people
- most people
- your average reader

 

[Matthew Wai]

Wikipedia agrees with me on this.

Oxford disagrees with you on this.

'To refer to a particular event you can use at/by/before, etc. the age of ... .'──quoted from the reference section of Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary, 8th edition.
There seems to be a space between the ellipsis and the full stop.

Where I come from, GS is right and emsr is wrong.

It could be the other way round in her country.

 

[lupicatulum]

The verb grasp works there: When you present information to students, they grasp it ["information" is an uncountable noun, thus the singular "it"] more readily if you speak their language.

Yes, grasp, I knew it should sound something like grip. Thank you.

I corrected myself by deleting "s" behind "information", but now I googled "uncountable noun" and learned something new.

I left out "masses" because I couldn't guess what you meant. I tend to associate that word, when applied to groups of people, with Marxist thought, the old Eastern bloc, and Maoism; I would use it only very carefully in a contemporary setting.

I replaced "easily" because readily adds the idea of quickness to the ease which easily​ represents.

OK, "readily", a new term in a new context... My head is blowing.

If I'm crossing the line by going offtopic, I apologize - just delete the rest of the post.

Now, about masses. That is very interesting subject to me. OK, check this out. My wife told me that when she was a kid, she played with her friend on her grandfather's garret. They found some very old self-medicine book and started to read it. And then they read that the most probable cause of backache is (believe it or not) - F**K!!! Exactly that word was written! (In my language.) Of course, they started to laugh, but the point is that obviously that word was 100, or 150 years ago just another word from our language. Nothing special.

Now, certain questions must be asked. (Thank you teechar ;-) )

When and why did f**k became vulgarity in our languge?

When and why did masses became a word that you (people from western countries) associate with Marxism, Maoism, Lenjinism, etc.? With what did you associate it in 16th century? 12th? Did red color started to splash in front of peoples eyes spontaneously when someone mentioned masses, or did some dark forces impose that associantion upon them?

As I can see, there are even some academics here on this forum. I've got one more sideline (nice little earner - thank you teechar again ); I write (scientific) articles and doctoral thesis for students who need help with statistical analysis. And from that point of perspective, this subject looks to me extremely interesting to research. Does anybody know any article that is already written regarding this subject?

 

[lupicatulum]

Does the spell checker work in your browser?

[cross-posted]

If you mean the spell checker that should be integrated in the text editor, then no, I don't see any spell checker. I'll try with another browser. (This one is FF.)

 

[lupicatulum]

Does the spell checker work in your browser?

[cross-posted]

Nov Im uzing IE. I see the spel chek ikon, but it asked me to dovnload and instal the spel cheker. So I did. Nov if I klick the ikon... Well, as you can see, nothing happend. It asks me again to download the spell checker. (??)

 

[lupicatulum]

It could be the other way round in her country.

Hey Matthew, if I may ask, how do you know who is she and who is he on this forum?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Send them a private message asking them their gender.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

When and why did masses became a word that you (people from western countries) associate with Marxism, Maoism, Lenjinism, etc.?

It's a matter of context.

With what did you associate it in 16th century? 12th?

There was no American English in the 16th century.

Did red color started to splash in front of peoples eyes spontaneously when someone mentioned masses, or did some dark forces impose that associantion upon them?

I have no idea. No two words mean exactly the same thing. If you want your sentence to sound natural, "the public" or "the general public" will sound less polemic.

As I can see, there are even some academics here on this forum.

Don't look at me!

I've got one more sideline (nice little earner - thank you teechar again ); I write (scientific) articles and doctoral thesis for students who need help with statistical analysis. And from that point of perspective, this subject looks to me extremely interesting to research. Does anybody know any article that is already written regarding this subject?

On the subject of word usage? A dictionary.

For instance, the online Collins dictionary (since I'm at the computer and don't want to go grab my Webster's) says:

"the masses in American English: the great mass of common people, specif. the working people, or the lower classes in the social order."

So you need to decide whether you're just refering to the lower classes or you want to include the rest of the general public.

I hope that helps!

 

[Matthew Wai]

Nov Im uzing IE. I see the spel chek ikon, but it asked me to dovnload and instal the spel cheker. So I did. Nov if I klick the ikon... Well, as you can see, nothing happend. It asks me again to download the spell checker. (??)

I have not installed a spell checker, but the red lines still appear, as shown below.

 

[emsr2d2]

As I understand it from previous posts about this, most of us have an inbuilt spell checker in our browser. It is normally set to our native language so if that's not English, it doesn't necessarily check English. Also, not all browsers have one built in. I assumed the red lines appear in my text due to a spell checker built into UE but they don't, they're down to the spell checker built in to Google Chrome.

 

[lupicatulum]

Send them a private message asking them their gender.

I'd concider that pretty invasive.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Right, so I have never done that before.