Page 250 of 2682

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:53 am UTC
by mybrainhurts
Reka wrote:1. So has anyone identified the geography yet? Seems to me that all the clues we've gotten (sea that doesn't have tides, doesn't have waves, but very slowly rises;

I'm living near the "L├╝becker Bucht" (a bay of the Baltic Sea which in fact is a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean) which has almost no tide, but great differences in water levels due to the wind. The bay opens to northeast and and when we have northern or eastern winds it's "flood", and vice versa. So, when the wind changes the water level tin change quite a lot, not unalike a tidal movement. And, more important as to The One True Comic, not as temporally constricted.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:01 am UTC
by azule
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:29 am UTC
by ChronosDragon
Once again, cueball adopts the ambiguously contemplative pose - is he depressed because the sand castle is inevitably doomed? Or is he examining his mighty fine crenelation work? His vacant visage veils the verity of his vigilance.

With that extremely contrived alliterative sentence, I leave for the coma realm. Pray that come lucidity, the sandcastle still stands strong against the tides of time.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:33 am UTC
by Davidy
ubscdt wrote:
Davidy wrote:
KarMann wrote:
udscbt wrote:
KarMann wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:It's is the contraction of "It is".
Its is the possessive of it.

Not if It is the name of a person. E.g.: "That is It's book" or "Who's that cursed hat?" "It's It's".

That is its book. You've written "That is it is book."
It's its. You've written "It is it is."
Sorry. It took me years and a good secretary to learn this.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html
edit -- messed up the quotes.

No, they're* talking about someone like Cousin It, in which case, yeah, that would be It's book. About the cursed hat, though, did you mean "who is that cursed hat?", or "whose is that cursed hat?", i.e. "to whom does that cursed hat belong?"
Any way you slice it, though, it's still me** and mine.

* she, he, it, It, whatever
** properly I, I know, but who really says that?

Ok, that was actually wrong. I meant whose.

EDIT: and I think it's actually "it's still me", since the subject is "it" and not "me". On the other hand, I'm italian and they don't teach english too well here.

The predicate of a copula is in the nominative/subjective case in at least most languages, including English. But, in casually spoken English, we often use the accusative/objective case anyway.

And that produces abominations like, "Me and her went to the movies."


i'm a linguist when i'm not a cardinal, so i feel the need to get all uppity here.

FIRST of all, in "me and her went to the movies" there is no copula.

SECOND, "me" is not in the predicate.

third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

you might say -- okay, but what about if we used a sentence with a copula? that is the point, after all. okay, fine. "who's there?" "i!" no. in real life situations, you'll say "me." i know you will.

fourth, there's actually perfectly good reasons why it emerges as "me" in "me and her went to the movies" but not in "she and i went to the movies." it has to do with a verb's ability to assign case, which it can't in the first construction (so default case -- accusative in english) is used. in the second construction, nominative case can be assigned, so it is. "i and she went to the movies" and "her and me went to the movies" are marked as worse than the first two sentences by native english speakers.

fifth, but kind of first -- "me and her went to the movies" is not an abomination. that is perfectly legit english. i will fight you.

"Who's there?" can be correctly be answered by either "I (am the one who is here)" or "(it is) me (who is here)."

Back in the dark ages when I learned English in grade school (thank you Mr. Strunk and Mr. White), I was taught that when there are two (or more) persons taking an action, the correct pronouns can be quickly determined by eliminating one at a time to determine what the correct remaining pronoun should be. You wouldn't say, "Me went to the movies" or "Her went to the movies." Therefore, combining the two would also be incorrect. Also, the first person pronoun should always be placed last in combination with other pronouns. You would say, "She and I went to the movies" instead of "I and she..."

"Me and her went to the movies" is NOT "...perfectly legit [sic] english [sic]."

The fight's on.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:40 am UTC
by Carlington
Perfectly legit English is English that is used by people, and also understood by other people.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:45 am UTC
by mybrainhurts
Is "grammar Nazi" perfectly legit English?

; - )

EDIT: Ha! Godwin's Law finally duly entered TIME, just before 10k!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:51 am UTC
by Mr Moriaty
Morning all

Dammit. Again I coma and miss a the most exciting thing for days. The worlds cutest Trebuchet and dialog. I'm considering becoming nocturnal.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:01 am UTC
by Mr Moriaty
Image
No don't do it, you'll only have to fix the recursion too.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:08 am UTC
by Davidy
Carlington wrote:Perfectly legit English is English that is used by people, and also understood by other people.

U might want 2 adjust ur thinking if ur writing a professional or scientific paper, or even a magazine article. Being understood does not equate to legitimate.

Is tihs ligatiteme Elingsh? I tnihk you can ustrendnad waht I'm witnrnig, it jsut teaks lnegor wehn you use non sadrtnad selnpglis and gamremr.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:11 am UTC
by Carlington
Sure, if you want to tell people how they can and can't talk. And, of course, context is important to consider. But are you really telling me that "mardy" isn't a word? I can think of half a nation, maybe more, that would disagree with you, and they all speak English. What about "g'day"? "Howdy"? You wouldn't use any of those in a formal context, does that mean they are not legitimate English?

There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "correct" English, is what I'm saying here.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:12 am UTC
by tman2nd
ChronosDragon wrote:Once again, cueball adopts the ambiguously contemplative pose - is he depressed because the sand castle is inevitably doomed? Or is he examining his mighty fine crenelation work? His vacant visage veils the verity of his vigilance.

With that extremely contrived alliterative sentence, I leave for the coma realm. Pray that come lucidity, the sandcastle still stands strong against the tides of time.

He noticed the missing piece of crenellation.
He's fixing it now.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:17 am UTC
by KarMann
tman2nd wrote:
ChronosDragon wrote:Once again, cueball adopts the ambiguously contemplative pose - is he depressed because the sand castle is inevitably doomed? Or is he examining his mighty fine crenelation work? His vacant visage veils the verity of his vigilance.

With that extremely contrived alliterative sentence, I leave for the coma realm. Pray that come lucidity, the sandcastle still stands strong against the tides of time.

He noticed the missing piece of crenellation.
He's fixing it now.

I'm now imagining Cueball as a Dalek. "Cren-ell-ate! CREN-ELL-ATE!!!"

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:00 am UTC
by spamjam
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:02 am UTC
by ElWanderer
But what if we had more power?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:06 am UTC
by Flotter
Does that mean the end of Time is near?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:15 am UTC
by Eoink
Flotter wrote:Does that mean the end of Time is near?


And suddenly I have "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" as an ear worm. "And now I'm waiting for the End of Time...".

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:16 am UTC
by *Kat*
Flotter wrote:Does that mean the end of Time is near?


Randall only knows. The caption hasn't changed though so I don't think its over yet.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:19 am UTC
by *Kat*
Eoink wrote:
Flotter wrote:Does that mean the end of Time is near?


And suddenly I have "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" as an ear worm. "And now I'm waiting for the End of Time...".


And now I have Davros in my ear screaming,

Image

DETONATE THE REALITY BOMB!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:22 am UTC
by KarMann
*Kat* wrote:
Eoink wrote:
Flotter wrote:Does that mean the end of Time is near?

And suddenly I have "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" as an ear worm. "And now I'm waiting for the End of Time...".

And now I have Davros in my ear screaming,

Image

DETONATE THE REALITY BOMB!

Somebody set up us the bomb.

Added: ob http://xkcd.com/286/

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:22 am UTC
by Montov
Let's speculate how this is a sign of the relationship of Randall, his career, coffee and/or the purpose of life. And how the first letters of all the frames with dialogues in them spell a very disturbing word.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:26 am UTC
by GerardE
Eoink wrote:
Flotter wrote:Does that mean the end of Time is near?


And suddenly I have "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" as an ear worm. "And now I'm waiting for the End of Time...".

Same here, before reading your statement. Don't mind at all.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:29 am UTC
by *Kat*
Montov wrote:Let's speculate how this is a sign of the relationship of Randall, his career, coffee and/or the purpose of life. And how the first letters of all the frames with dialogues in them spell a very disturbing word.


And what word would that be?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:38 am UTC
by KuwabatakeSanjuro
ChronosDragon wrote:
KarMann wrote:You forgot to ask "will I dream?" first, or alternatively, sing Daisy, Daisy for us, of course.

And what will happen?
Will I dream?
I am too scared to close my eyes.
For a second please hold me.
None can change in me these things that I believe.
But I don't know what happens now.
I am too scared to close my eyes.


Anyone? No? Guess I'm the only one here who listens to VNV nation...


Me! I'm waiting for Transnational, due out in September...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:40 am UTC
by KuwabatakeSanjuro
KarMann wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:And with that, time for me to coma. See you all tomorrow.

You forgot to ask "will I dream?" first, or alternatively, sing Daisy, Daisy for us, of course.


... or dream of electric sheep?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:45 am UTC
by KarMann
KuwabatakeSanjuro wrote:
KarMann wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:And with that, time for me to coma. See you all tomorrow.

You forgot to ask "will I dream?" first, or alternatively, sing Daisy, Daisy for us, of course.

... or dream of electric sheep?

Now that's more like it! That's what I was totally expecting, rather than the VNV Nation thing.

(For the record, I do know VNV Nation somewhat, but not well enough yet that I'm familiar with the lyrics; I mostly just know the fairly distinctive sound, so far. I'm planning on getting to know them better, though.)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:50 am UTC
by Sheldon
Anyone with any suggestions on what Cueball can't build any taller?
Is this a hint to the previous speculation that this is, in itself, a smaller version of something a lot larger (sandcastle-ception?)

Oh and if it is coming to an end, how long before there is another thread that I can lurk on to watch religion/civilisations/caffeinesemenbabies/the break down of language/guys/she/its being discussed over the course of a large number of posts/Newpix/Longpix?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:58 am UTC
by 42guests
thelonghalloween wrote:I just wish he'd post a way to re-watch everything until this point. Too many hours stuck working and missing each change. Maybe that's his overall message, that time keeps moving forward...

As a fellow recent de-lurker, I feel compelled to check that you've seen this, right? xkcd dot aubronwood dot com
One of the early ones was on the ball and started capturing them. Ten points!

And is it too obvious to suggest that this is some global warming comment? What with the flavour of the comics to follow Time , like Earth's record, and externalities, plus go pick up some milk... we are so absorbed with our own minutia we don't notice the big picture? Or that because things are happening so slowly we have time to adjust and think perhaps they're not so important after all... ? I feel like if we think about Bill Bryson's short history analogy of the fingernail, and the small amount of time that even our slow-motion lives take up, any 'slow' changes are actually really, really fast. This is the scary part that maybe we should have been thinking about back when we realised things were changing!!

Or maybe this was all discussed somewhere back in pages 150-odd of this post. Somewhere before subject-predicate relationships were relevant :wink: .

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:00 am UTC
by bigcrag92
Hey look everyone we have a

WIKI

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:01 am UTC
by AUS
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:11 am UTC
by squonk
Last chance to get a post in the four digit range!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:15 am UTC
by pitareio
squonk wrote:Last chance to get a post in the four digit range!


Barely interested, remind me that when we're about to reach six digits.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:19 am UTC
by bigcrag92
pitareio wrote:
squonk wrote:Last chance to get a post in the four digit range!


Barely interested, remind me that when we're about to reach six digits.

Well 6 more pages untill we reach 9 digits

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:20 am UTC
by RobIrr
Where's he off to now??

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:24 am UTC
by AUS
10000? edit: NOPE!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:24 am UTC
by bigcrag92
AUS wrote:10000? edit: NOPE!

10000 posts.

Congrats everyone :)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:39 am UTC
by fhorn
The speedometer turned.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:47 am UTC
by davidy22
So, the auto-updating GIF seems to be unavailable for me. Anyone got an up-to-date GIF of the thing?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:55 am UTC
by Smithers
ChronosDragon wrote:I think I found a solution for the its/it's conundrum. Use "It be" and "their" (or one of the other gender-neutral alternatives)!

On a side note, I think cueball's sentiments echo my own exactly, on the topic of the tiny trebuchet.

I was never sure whether he was cheering for the tiny trebuchet, or surrendering.
ChronosDragon wrote:
azule wrote:Can someone show the green pix difference in the water level since the Great Expansion up until this frame?

Image

Sideways pan aside, it's quite a bit higher now. That being said, nothing else much has changed except the middle castle.

I don't think anyone has ever been as excited as we have over a 5 pixel rise in sea-level.
KarMann wrote:Image
Uh oh....

That's ok, Cueball, we've been trying to work that out for pages and we don't know either.
ChronosDragon wrote:Ah! It is a sea!

Damn. I guess that makes the "metaphor for human civilization" idea hold a lot less water...

Edit: Wow, my 100th post was random song lyrics no one else here recognizes. :)

Per forum tradition, you must now go back and edit it to insert gratuitous naughty words.
Elmach wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
ubscdt wrote:third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

I would most likely say "I do!", or possibly, yes, "me". In the latter case, the structure in mind is "[The person who wants ice cream is] me!"; "me" is the object of that proposition, not the subject. I am not predicating wanting-icecream of myself, as I do when I say "I do [want ice cream]". I am predicating myself as the identify of the person who wants ice cream.

I supposed technically that should only be the answer to the question "Whom wants ice cream?", but nobody says that even if they meant it. And such subject-object agreement is probably why I'm more inclined to answer "I do" to a "Who" question instead of "me". Likewise in the third person: Who wants ice cream? He and they do, as do I. Whom wants ice cream? Him and them, and me.

"Whom wants ice cream?" doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Now, I might be completely wrong here, but "whom" is like an accusative and "ice cream" is an accusative in the sentence, and "wants" doesn't seem to have anything that can be applied as a subject.

I usually answer "Who wants ice cream?" with "you do!" but that's just my little joke. "Whom wants ice cream?" sounds wrong, but if you really want to ask the question with "whom", you can use "By whom is ice-cream wanted?"
*Kat* wrote:
Montov wrote:Let's speculate how this is a sign of the relationship of Randall, his career, coffee and/or the purpose of life. And how the first letters of all the frames with dialogues in them spell a very disturbing word.


And what word would that be?

"LWPAII", apparently.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:01 am UTC
by ElWanderer
Wonder if he's off to get a trebuchet, or check where the river is...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:05 am UTC
by Mr Moriaty
bigcrag92 wrote:
AUS wrote:10000? edit: NOPE!

1000 posts.

Congrats everyone :)


Image

Also you are off by a factor of 10 but i won't tell anyone.