SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Does anyone out there have a favorite Linux program for downloading podcasts? I've been using Chess Griffin's mashpodder but (a) it's now abandonware, and (b) due to the way it identifies files, it doesn't work with modern podcasts where the base name of the file is always "media.mp3" and the earlier parts of the URL change. As such, I'm looking for a replacement, preferably something that I can run as a cron job so that it fires every day without any intervention on my part and where the configuration lives in a file that I can edit with a simple text editor like vim. I'm considering rolling my own in Python just to get more experience with that language, but I thought I'd see if any Soylentils had suggestions for me to check out before I went to the effort of doing that.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 27 2018, @04:41PM (4 children)
Then there is the more standard (or less nonstandard, if you like) future as in "Tomorrow I will (or shall) go to school", which is just present tense "will" + infinitive "go" and so still isn't a future tense as such. Then, you can get things like "Today I will the event to happen" becoming "Tomorrow I will will the event to happen again." Doesn't work with shall, fortunately, but then, we pretty much quit with shall (evolution at work). Also doesn't work with "can": "Today I can see the statue." "Tomorrow I will can see the statue?" Nope, "can" has an infinitive but only in the sense of putting something into a container, not indicating ability, so no go. We have to be something, in this case be able, in the sense that we be able to see the statue, so that in the future we will be able to see the statue. Clunky when you think about it, and not futuristic, but it works for pretty much everyone even if it lacks Latin's dedicated future tense.
But if Latin was linguistically and culturally all that great, it probably would still be a going concern, instead of evolving so much in so many directions that it's now not even Latin anymore but Romanian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @05:24PM (3 children)
Yes indeed, there's more than one way to analyze that but in no sense is it an actual future tense to the verb. You can call it an auxiliary verb or a helper verb or what have you, but the actual verb in 'I shall %x' is obviously shall, no matter what verbal phrase you use for %x. It's in simple present form, and it's a verb that historically meant 'to owe %x, to be obliged or committed to %x.' So it's a phrasing that originally meant 'I'm (now) committed to going to school tomorrow.'
"Doesn't work with shall"
Because 'shall' doesn't have a convenient homophone.
"Will" however can be verbal (from willan, to be willing) or nominal (from willa, will itself, or more broadly mental capacity, determination) and you use both, alternating, to make that work. There is a nominal form of shall, shild, but it's neither spelled nor pronounced the same as shall (plus it's archaïc and most people wouldn't recognize it of course.)
"Nope, "can" has an infinitive but only in the sense of putting something into a container, not indicating ability, so no go"
"Can" is another case where you're playing with a set of homophones - and in this case they aren't even closely related. "Canne" was a container for liquid of some kind, it's not clear if it was originally a cup, mug, jug, or just any of the above. This gives us both the modern nominal form (a can) but also the derived verbal form you mention (to put something in a can or jar, as for preservation.) Sound changes and spelling reforms result in it being spelt simply 'can.'
On the other hand "can" was a form of the verb 'to know.' It's still used this way in e.g. Swedish "jag kan svenska." You can translate this 'I know Swedish' and without more context that's the best translation, but only because 'I can Swedish' is not grammatically sound in (modern) English. If you know the context, this might mean "I can speak Swedish" or "I can read and write Swedish" but it definitely implies not just abstract knowledge but some sort of concrete ability to demonstrate the knowledge, "I know how to" not just "I know about."
"But if Latin was linguistically and culturally all that great, it probably would still be a going concern, instead of evolving so much in so many directions that it's now not even Latin anymore but Romanian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc"
Well, classical Latin spawned all of those languages, plus medieval church Latin, and through that most of our modern international scientific vocabulary, so at the very least it's one of the most influential languages that ever existed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 27 2018, @05:58PM (2 children)
No, "i will it to happen" is itself verbal, and "I will will it again tomorrow" is more of the same. No nomnative form appears here. If I will something to happen, it is because I am willing, not because I am self-aware. If I will will it again tomorrow, then it will be because I will be willing, not because I will continue to be self-aware.
Only because it would be wrong to say that "can" doesn't have an infinitive. It does; it just belongs to a different meaning of the word. The knowledge-noun meaning survives in English (no need to visit Sweden) in the word "ken" which means scope or range of knowledge or understanding; as a verb that just doesn't have an infinitive in practice. French has pouvoir faire quelque chose, Spanish has poder hacer algo, but English must do without "to can do something". Wierd but workable.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @07:37PM (1 child)
Correct.
However, what I *thought* happened there was that you had one verbal form descended from a verbal form, and one verbal form created by verbing the nominal form, much like canne and can are both verbs. On re-examining, I'm not sure that's actually true, but I'm still not sure it's not true.
Regardless of the correct etymology for will in the sense of 'will it to happen' you're still using the same sequence of letters with two quite different meanings; will (do in the future) and will (to power etc.)
As to can being a verb with no infinitive, that really kind of depends on the meaning of infinitive. 'To can' would be what we normally call an infinitive form in English, and I think we agree that unambiguously belongs to the 'canne' family not the 'can' family.
But why do we call that the infinitive form? Well, in imitation of Latin, of course. That's roughly the sense of the corresponding Latin imperative. But the Latin grammarians didn't call it the infinitive to denote the sense of the form, but only to denote that it was seen as the most 'basic' form of the verb, in relation to the others. And 'to can' isn't the simplest form in English, in fact it's not a basic form at all, but a verbal phrase!
Swedish borrowed the same word from Latin but followed the denotation instead of the form, so in Swedish grammars 'kan' is the 'infinitiv' form here. If we adopt that meaning of infinitive, then what we call an infinitive traditionally can be seen as a regular verbal phrase used to denote an activity in abstract, and examined in that light it all makes sense. It's awkward to have 'to can' be ambiguous as to 'putting in a can' or 'knowing how to' and it's obviously better to resolve it by having 'to can' mean 'to put in a can' rather than the opposite, because there aren't many other phrases in general usage that could be substituted in the case of canning, but there ARE many phrases in current using that can denote 'to know (how to.)
"survives in English (no need to visit Sweden) in the word "ken""
Correct, but like shild it's a word I've been informed authoritatively I may not expect the modern reader to know.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @07:40PM
canne and can were not both verbs, but both have produce verbs in modern English.
also s/imperative/infinitive
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?