Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

css-tricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#201

Post by CRConrad »

zarzavat wrote: post #197
hnhamdani2 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-native English speaker myself, I still find native using contraction on "there's two cats" counter intuitive. Sometimes I use the correct grammar "there are two cats" but then it sounds too formal for the native to heard it. Then I have to adjust with the "wrong" way of saying it.

There’s nothing grammatically incorrect about “there’s”. The oversight is in confusing a contraction with an abbreviation. “There’s” is a contraction for either “there is” or “there are” and the precise one is given by context. It is not a mere abbreviation for “there is”. Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

> “There’s” is a contraction for either “there is” or “there are”

But doesn't con-traction mean "pulling together"? You pull the last letter over towards the first ones, squishing out the ones between. Only there is no 's' at the end of "there are" to pull over next to "there".

So "there's" can't really be a contraction of "there are", AFAICS.

> Written contractions are meant to faithfully represent spoken English, in which people indeed say “there’s” for both the singular and the plural.

Sure, it may be a perfectly valid usage, so it's something... But as matter of terminology, whatever that something is, I don't think it's a contraction.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#203

Post by CRConrad »

867-5309 wrote: post #146
jonny_eh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could even argue that "here's" is now an accepted conjugation of "here are".

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

"Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense. Otherwise it would be "I did (get them)".

Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#204

Post by CRConrad »

dotancohen wrote: post #196
snorgle2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. Good memory, too. Slicehost probably deserves credit as well. I’m not arguing for who deserves it. Arguing for who doesn’t. Slicehost’s approach to a number of things was better in a lot of ways and they did documentation a little differently, but you’re right, the funnel concept is the same (between all three). I miss them too. They were respectful competitors and I know they were generally liked by competitor…

Why are you posting from multiple accounts? snorgle, snorgle2, both of which are recently-registered accounts? You might have an innocuous reason, but it seem a suspicious workaround to site rules or voting.

Wild-assed guess: They forgot the password for the first one, so made a #2?

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#205

Post by 867-5309 »

CRConrad wrote: post #203
867-5309 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

"Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense. Otherwise it would be "I did (get them)". Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#206

Post by 867-5309 »

saghm wrote: post #164
867-5309 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

To be fair, I think "do you have them?" would be more common for a lot of English speakers ("have you got" sounds British to me as an American, but it's possible that this is just a regional American thing). I'm not sure I would either think fast enough to care enough to tailor my automated response to a question like that based on the exact phrasing of the query.

Americans still use it as a response though, e.g. "You got this!" - "I do!". it's the "I do got" which really bugs me. "I do have" and "I have got" are fine and make sense

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#207

Post by 867-5309 »

ricardo81 wrote: post #190
867-5309 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

That sounds like something I would say, a more understandable aspect of Scots, even if it's no richt, ken.

a speaker of Scots may be excused

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#208

Post by 867-5309 »

smcnally wrote: post #186
867-5309 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

c.f. “It’s raining.” “What's raining?”

nice one, I'm sure there's a grammatical name for that, maybe in Truss

"She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#209

Post by CRConrad »

867-5309 wrote: post #205
CRConrad wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense. Otherwise it would be "I did (get them)". Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

> "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

> so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#210

Post by 867-5309 »

CRConrad wrote: post #209
867-5309 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

> "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious) If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note. > so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious) The actual question, OTOH, wa…

>If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. of course you could have something without getting it, and other playground grammar, but that just detracts

>The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing? you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless. the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

>So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

of course it was, for you. obviously

>Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment. since you muddied the waters, you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey' and 'wich', plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

Post reply on HN