Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there? Where? Point at one? Two?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351604
[deleted]
The city that forgot itself
51–60 of 93 posts
Re: The city that forgot itself
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there? Where? Point at one? Two?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351604
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not).
It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
Re: The city that forgot itself
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen this construction before; I'm sorry if you have not. But that does not make it "broken".
"I have seen this construction before" is not a very high bar for communicating well.
"I have not seen this construction before, therefor it must be wrong"
Is a way to raise barriers to your own learning.
Re: The city that forgot itself
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think is poetic rather it is broken. No, it is not. You are merely unfamiliar with this sentence construction. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix-a-g... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/fix-one-s-gaze https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/fix+his+with+a+gaze
The construction wasn't "fixing her gaze on the shrine" (which would be correct), it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. What the article says means either "she fastens the shrine into place using her eyes" or "she repairs the shrine with her eyes".
> it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense.
Again, I disagree, it's a poetic construction, possibly a bit dated, and so the other commenter pointed out, probably more UK English than US English.
You don't have to be familiar with it. But there's a kind of closed-minded arrogance to reading such an otherwise well-written piece and concluding "is it me that doesn't know this particular turn of phrase? No, it must be nonsense!"
Re: The city that forgot itself
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351604
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not). It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
If you're trying to understand the original article I think you have enough information.
If you want to expand your understanding of English then you have some leads to follow and an opportunity to learn. If you don't believe them that's your choice, but it's not evidence to the contrary.
If you're trying to gate-keep and prescribe someone else's language, then you should at least respect if others don't want to join your argument.
(EDIT - Here's a past exam paper published by Cambridge that references such a phrase on page 16
https://pastpapers.co/cie/O-Level/English-Language-1123/2019... )
Re: The city that forgot itself
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351604
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not). It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
Yes, I am a native UK English speaker.
> It might be a regional dialect,
a) it isn't - it might be archaic and poetic, but I don't view it as "regional"
> a regional dialect is also a form of broken English
Wrong! That's not how it works.
As the sibling comment says, what do you want? To understand the piece, improve your vocabulary or to tell the writer that they're Englishing wrong because "The Critic - Britain's Most Civilised Magazine", is using a turn of phrase that's not well known in your neck 'o the woods? I doubt that they care about that.
Re: The city that forgot itself
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
English is a very beautiful language. There are many ways to say something similar, but each have slightly different meanings. In this case, the writer decided to use "flowery" language, which is usually to create a detailed picture, smell, and feeling for the reader. The point is not only to convey facts but to convey a sense of place. That is the reason for the complicated language. For example, it says: "A woman i…
To me that says her gaze is fixing the shrine.
Exactly, and "fixing" in this sense means "nailing to the spot", or "fastening upon, halt, stop moving, be immobile like a fixed point or fixed price".
It's a poetic expression.
Re: The city that forgot itself
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want cites google "fix him with your gaze" or "fix it with your gaze" - including the quotes.
It has ~3 results. 1 talks about making something immovable with your gaze with a spell in a fantasy setting. The other 2 are in blogspam articles of German companies, one of them is also available in several other languages, presumably machine translated.
There are hits for other permutations such as ""fix them with your gaze", "fix me with your gaze", "fix her with your gaze" etc.
If you're claiming that this is "wrong" then I think that's disproven. I don't even know what the point of that exercise would be. Just finally accept it as an opportunity to learn a new turn of phrase. You don't have to even use it, just accept that others do. IDK what the gatekeeping is about.
If you still feel the need, then IDK, write a strongly worded letter about it to the editor of The Critic? It says "Britain's Most Civilised Magazine" on the home page. Have at it, present your credentials, see if you get anywhere.
Or if you don't want to engage with the piece on its own terms, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
Re: The city that forgot itself
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not). It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
Yes, I am a native UK English speaker. > It might be a regional dialect, a) it isn't - it might be archaic and poetic, but I don't view it as "regional" > a regional dialect is also a form of broken English Wrong! That's not how it works. As the sibling comment says, what do you want? To understand the piece, improve your vocabulary or to tell the writer that they're Englishing wrong because "The Critic - Britain's M…
Excuse me, do you have a license for that gerund?
Re: The city that forgot itself
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The construction wasn't "fixing her gaze on the shrine" (which would be correct), it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. What the article says means either "she fastens the shrine into place using her eyes" or "she repairs the shrine with her eyes".
> it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. Again, I disagree, it's a poetic construction, possibly a bit dated, and so the other commenter pointed out, probably more UK English than US English. You don't have to be familiar with it. But there's a kind of closed-minded arrogance to reading such an otherwise well-written piece and concluding "is it me that doesn't know this particular turn of phr…
I mean the dictionaries don't now it, and google doesn't know it. Also what about your arrogance, just because you've heard it, it doesn't mean that it's correct. I've heard a lot of things that are considered broken English.