tag:dreamwidth.org,2018-12-04:3452007 lupin5th lupin5th 2019-08-12T21:12:38Z tag:dreamwidth.org,2018-12-04:3452007:172161 2019-08-12T21:12:38Z 2019-08-12T21:12:38Z public 0 via <a href="https://ift.tt/2TBt6Y9">https://ift.tt/2TBt6Y9</a><br /><br />balioc:<br /><br />The opposite of “bonfire” is, presumably, “malice.”<br /><img src="https://lupin5th.dreamwidth.org/file/172256.png" /><br /><br /><img src="https://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=lupin5th&ditemid=172161" width="30" height="12" alt="comment count unavailable" style="vertical-align: middle;"/> comments tag:dreamwidth.org,2018-12-04:3452007:139652 2019-07-07T21:40:20Z 2019-07-07T21:40:20Z public 0 via <a href="https://ift.tt/2YElbej">https://ift.tt/2YElbej</a><br /><br />allthingslinguistic:<br /><br />An interesting thread about the discursive function of “waslike”.<br /><br />Technically speaking, I wouldn’t say that this construction is really a compound verb “waslike”, because it still conjugates like you’d normally conjugate the verb “to be”. (I’m like, you’re like, s/he’s like; I was like, you were like, s/he was like - not I waslike, you waslike, s/he waslikes.)<br /><br />The linguistic term for it is quotative “like” and there have been several academic papers about it, including this early one from 1990 and this extensive survey of functions of “like” by Alexandra D’Arcy.<br /><img src="https://lupin5th.dreamwidth.org/file/139713.png" /><br /><br /><img src="https://www.dreamwidth.org/tools/commentcount?user=lupin5th&ditemid=139652" width="30" height="12" alt="comment count unavailable" style="vertical-align: middle;"/> comments