Supergrunch

When I saw Avatar everyone applauded at the end, which was quite amusing. I think that was in Stevenage, too.

Disattached = detached, which is why people don't use the former. It's fine make up "new" words out of productive morphemes, but when there's already another form in common use for the same thing it doesn't really work...

Obviously, I found out about the original after looking up the film on wiki after seeing it, and it looks more interesting. And I also sat through the Haunting in Connecticut, but it was more hilariously bad than just awful, so I was motivated to stay put. Although I think people were getting annoyed at how we were bursting out laughing at all the "scary" bits.

Fail, ideas are memes.

A jock wannabe who doesn't like video games or manga/comics. Oh, I saw The Killer Inside Me also. Didn't walk out, but it was way too violent to be enjoyable.

I don't think I've ever actually walked out of a film, but I have a friend with awful taste in films who has taken me to things I'd definitely have walked out of if he hadn't been insisting we stay. For instance: The Cottage - just stupid, but at least it wasn't as bad as Grown Ups - dear God I nearly died watching this. Not remotely funny even in an immature way (which is what it was going for and failing at). Dinner for Schmucks - a little better, but still horribly contrived. And too cringeworthy to be in any way watchable (this is coming from someone who likes cringe-based humour). Anyway, I got my own back by making him watch Scott Pilgrim, which I knew he'd hate.

I'm still undecided as to whether or not to do this. Does it count if you have a beard too? My girlfriend wants me to grow a temporary beard, so I haven't shaved in a few days, but I'm not so keen on the idea... Methinks I'll go back to closely shaved soon.

Other way round - they make the film look worse by comparison.

I thought it was pretty awesome, second only to Scott Pilgrim in new films I've seen recently. I liked the characterisation and believability, and thought there was some decent cinematography in places.

Precisely what I was going to suggest. It'd be awesome, even if it has been done... not that I'd have any time to contribute.

Or better still, watch this Minecraft Youtube series: You might end up addicted to the series though. At least it's finite.

Yeah, I work every day, so an extra hour is always nice. I got kind of confused this morning though when half my clocks were different to the others, as I'd not heard about the change.

I think previously you used to drop your stuff, but since the update it just vanishes. I haven't confirmed this though.

And whitelist meee! (Supergrunch in Minecraft also)

God you guys are making me want Dominos now... all my Dominos eating friends have left, so far I've only had one if their pizzas this term.

I think Eden of the East has an great opening (best viewed in 720p), partly because it's English rather than Engrish, but also because it's very stylish: I'm sure I can think of some other good things that haven't yet been posted, but it might take me a while. The watchmen one is awesome though. Edit: Wait, it does spell "remorse" wrong, lol.

Are you going to the national protest then chair? My union and supervisor both want me to go, but my main reservation is that I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences of the cuts... From a superficial perspective it does seem problematic though.

You realise they're essentially infinite right? In actuality, I think memory limits them to being about 6-8 times the surface of Earth (assuming one square = one metre), but that's not exactly a limitation anyone is going to reach. A list of allowed users, it could be a good idea.

What makes "love" a stative verb? As far as I can tell, your argument is "love is a stative verb because it is one," which isn't an argument at all. Grammarians classified "love" as stative because of the way it behaved in a particular variety of English, which is where your "fact" comes from - this doesn't mean it can't change category. There are few "facts" about language that are immutable and resistant to change - indeed, some (but not me) might say there are none, but all linguists agree that something as minor as the aspectual usage of a single lexical verb is very likely to undergo changes diachronically, even if it doesn't synchronically. You seem to think that the change is one that's happening to all stative verbs, but this is in fact not the case. Stative and dynamic verbs are still treated the same, but "love" has changed so that it may now be used both dynamically and statively. We can see this quite clearly by comparing it to a canonical stative verb like "know," which enters into no dynamic uses (I've put in "run," a canonical dynamic verb for a control). Let's compare how they behave with respect to Dowty's tests (you still haven't given me your judgement on these, I'd be interested to see whether your "love" is at all dynamic). Note that we only call things stative because of how they behave syntactically, so if a verb is grammatical in all these cases, then it can be used dynamically - there's not really a coherent semantic defintion of stative/dynamic. Progressive: I am running. I am loving her. *I am knowing your height. (the star is used to mean unacceptable/ungrammatical) Imperative: Run! Love me! *Know your height! Complements of "force": I forced him to run. I forced her to love me. *I forced him to know his height. Pseudo-cleft: What I did was run. What I did was love. (this one may be slightly questionable for me) *What I did was know my height. It seems fairly clear that for my dialect at least, "love" satisfies many if not of the criteria for being dynamic, so it seems reasonable to at least suggest that it can have both dynamic and stative readings. This is not particularly unusual - another example is "smell," which can be used in both ways "I smell / I am smelling." Which is incidentally from your list of apparently God-given stative verbs, so it's not as absolute as you think. Stativity is a property which verbs may always have, sometimes have, or never have, depending on each specific usage - it's not necessarily coded into the verb itself. And I don't see why you think it's so hard for words to change categories like this. It happens very often over long periods of time - for instance the French word "chez" today behaves something like a preposition, but it's cognate with latin "casam," which is just a noun meaning house. Indeed, these sorts of changes are far more common than changes in the whole system like your suggesting, although large-scale changes do indeed sometimes happen, like the formation of the English class of modals from Old English preterite-present verbs. Yep. Not always - what are you doing when you "love." I believe other languages express the concept of "fire" using a verb rather than a noun. It's much better to decide what word classes are using distributional and syntactic criteria rather than semantic ones. It's just a temporary thought, which can be viewed as an action. This shows all the more why semantic criteria are rubbish. Not really, it's about the verb itself, but you sort of have the right idea. And note that lots of stative verbs can't be used dynamically at all. Overall I don't see why this seems to be angering some people so much. It's just a case of scientific grammar, and what I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial in linguistics.

Yes, everyone who doesn't love breeze blocks.

In progressive constructions like all of those "be" is just an auxiliary, there for the syntax really. Obviously this use of "love" does imply a time-frame, but that doesn't mean it's just for things that are transitory. You could, for instance really like breeze blocks, but then later go off them - "In the Autumn of 1983, I was loving breeze blocks, but now I'm loving tiles."

So I found this when I was googling to see if any papers had been written about this new dynamic form. :wink:

Is it McDonald's? I think it's more likely that they based their slogan on an already emerging usage, but I could be wrong. Anyway, sematically speaking, it's surely okay to say you're loving someone so long as you accept that love can be temporary, and it seems pretty accepted today that love isn't something that's always eternal, else divorce would be less common. Although it may be that there's some kind of layering going on, with a dynamic "love" for, e.g. concepts and a stative "love" for people. Edit: Yes, I think jayseven's point about the difference in meaning could back up this layering idea.