The CBB

I've had a blog for ten years, but I still don't get any comments.

Well, that's not quite fair - occasionally I get one or two. But pretty close to zero - although it actually has a fairly decent number of views for what it is. Sometimes, looking at the stats, you can even see that someone's found it and read about twenty blog posts in one setting... but they still never comment...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑12 Oct 2019 18:37 I've had a blog for ten years, but I still don't get any comments.

Well, that's not quite fair - occasionally I get one or two. But pretty close to zero - although it actually has a fairly decent number of views for what it is. Sometimes, looking at the stats, you can even see that someone's found it and read about twenty blog posts in one setting... but they still never comment...

I think I've read all of your Pratchett reviews (and the one about him after he died got posted a handful of times on Facebook as well), but, yeah, I don't think I've ever commented, mostly because I don't think I would add anything to it beyond "yep, I agree with you".

Have you gone into your settings and enabled comments? Before the matter of even people finding your posts and wanting to comment, you have to actually go into the settings to enable them. I don't remember if tumblr auto disables being searchable as well but you should check just in case. Unless you mean you can't see a reblog button, in which case, that might be an anti spamming thing for new blogs. But tumblr changes these things all the time so that's just a best guess.

Salmoneus: Your blog is Vacuous Wastrel, right? I've read that before, and yes, I haven't commented. In fact, after you mentioned your blog here, I googled "vacuous wastrel" and the first hit I saw was your "10 reasons" essay on the passing of Terry Pratchett. I agree with Sangi that that was a great essay (and introduction to Terry Pratchett for people who haven't already read him!), and found the 2015 entry in your own blog. I emailed a link to your blog entry to my brother (a Pratchett fan)!

LinguistCat: I checked the settings at https://www.tumblr.com/settings/blog/savegraduation . I already have them set to allow anyone to comment/reply, and I don't have spidering/indexing disallowed, nor by blog hidden. Reblogging is allowed -- I even see a reblog button, just not a reply button.

Khemehekis wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 04:14 LinguistCat: I checked the settings at https://www.tumblr.com/settings/blog/savegraduation . I already have them set to allow anyone to comment/reply, and I don't have spidering/indexing disallowed, nor by blog hidden. Reblogging is allowed -- I even see a reblog button, just not a reply button.

Ah, wish I could tell you better what next to try. It might actually just be a new blog thing, for whatever reason. Tumblr is such a functional website./sarcasm

LinguistCat wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 06:22 It might actually just be a new blog thing, for whatever reason.

A {{new blog} thing}, or a {new {blog thing}}?

Tumblr is such a functional website./sarcasm

Agreed. (And I've been using it for fewer than two months!)

Khemehekis wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 06:29

LinguistCat wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 06:22 It might actually just be a new blog thing, for whatever reason.

A {{new blog} thing}, or a {new {blog thing}}?

The former :') probably in the interest of "stopping spam" or something else that doesn't actually work.

LinguistCat wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 07:42

Khemehekis wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 06:29

LinguistCat wrote: ↑16 Oct 2019 06:22 It might actually just be a new blog thing, for whatever reason.

A {{new blog} thing}, or a {new {blog thing}}?

The former :') probably in the interest of "stopping spam" or something else that doesn't actually work.

Ah, yes. The term "feel-good measure" would probably be appropriate to apply to this.

(And how would preventing replies stop spam? One would think that if new bloggers were to be ogled suspiciously for the potential of being spammers, it would be the blog posts themselves, and not other Tumblr users' responses, that would constitute spam.)

Khemehekis wrote: ↑17 Oct 2019 04:24 (And how would preventing replies stop spam? One would think that if new bloggers were to be ogled suspiciously for the potential of being spammers, it would be the blog posts themselves, and not other Tumblr users' responses, that would constitute spam.)

Spambots interact both with real users and other spambots to make webs of interaction. That is just so they look more real to google. I suppose comments count as interactions, and are also a way to spread malware and take over blogs. So until you look "real" to tumblr they assume you are either a spambot giving interactions to other spambots or someone too new and dumb to know you should block spambots in your comments if you have the chance. Or that's my best guess knowing what I've heard. The whole thing is ridiculous, but they can't even figure out how to get rid of spambots that are on the site without killing half the (sfw/rule abiding) art and writing blogs with them.

LinguistCat wrote: ↑17 Oct 2019 21:17 The whole thing is ridiculous, but they can't even figure out how to get rid of spambots that are on the site without killing half the (sfw/rule abiding) art and writing blogs with them.

ISFP's and INFP's suffer.

Hopefully this ENFP won't go down that route.

How can I delete my account or at least remove my email from it?

Leo gives "to show so. round" for German "jmdn. herumführen".

Is it ok to write "He shows her round in the ship" or is it "He shows her round the ship"?

Khemehekis, as you talk about Metal, see here.

Tanni wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 10:31 Leo gives "to show so. round" for German "jmdn. herumführen".

Is it ok to write "He shows her round in the ship" or is it "He shows her round the ship"?

I'd say "around" and without "in", so "He shows her around the ship".

shimobaatar wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 20:41

Tanni wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 10:31 Leo gives "to show so. round" for German "jmdn. herumführen".

Is it ok to write "He shows her round in the ship" or is it "He shows her round the ship"?

I'd say "around" and without "in", so "He shows her around the ship".

I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.

I'd say if you're a non-native speaker, stick to "show around"; "show around in" is probably something that'll sound odd unless you use it in exactly the right context...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29

shimobaatar wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 20:41

Tanni wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 10:31 Leo gives "to show so. round" for German "jmdn. herumführen".

Is it ok to write "He shows her round in the ship" or is it "He shows her round the ship"?

I'd say "around" and without "in", so "He shows her around the ship".

I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.

I'd say if you're a non-native speaker, stick to "show around"; "show around in" is probably something that'll sound odd unless you use it in exactly the right context...

Thank you, shimobaatar and Salmoneus! I've put the source text of two chapters of the story here, so you can see the development of the story as well as the development of the translation. It may look messy at first glance, but it makes things easier, as you can keep all relevant information, e. g. former versions of a sentence to avoid cyclic corrections, as well as Internet research on certain topics relevant to the story in one file.

I've changed the sentence to: One of the wulf sailors showed her around the ship and explained everything to her.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29

shimobaatar wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 20:41

Tanni wrote: ↑06 Feb 2020 10:31 Leo gives "to show so. round" for German "jmdn. herumführen".

Is it ok to write "He shows her round in the ship" or is it "He shows her round the ship"?

I'd say "around" and without "in", so "He shows her around the ship".

I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.

I'd say if you're a non-native speaker, stick to "show around"; "show around in" is probably something that'll sound odd unless you use it in exactly the right context...

If someone said something like "He showed her around in the building", to me that's like saying that "he paraded her around the building", where it would indicate that the person being "showed around" is being displayed to the other occupants of the building.

Leo does not know the word belleek:

Sorry, we found no matches for your search term(s) belleek.

Tanni wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 10:40 Leo does not know the word belleek:

Sorry, we found no matches for your search term(s) belleek.

Belleek is a kind of pottery made in the village of Belleek (population 904) in Northern Ireland - the most westerly settlement in the United Kingdom. It was particularly active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is the sort of thing that rich old people might have collections of. It's a type of Parianware*, but distinctively shiny, and often very thin. Wiktionary says the pottery, belleek, does not have a capital letter, despite being derived from the name of the village, Belleek.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... ES3579.jpg < belleek
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... _13817.jpg < belleek


*Parianware (or just Parian - I think technically 'Parian' is the substance, 'Parianware' the stuff made out of Parian) is a type of Victorian porcelain intended to imitate marble. They made ordinary cups, plates etc out of Parian, but it's most famous as a material for making figurines. When you see those old small busts of Shakespeare and Beethoven and whomever on people's bookshelves - those were traditionally made of Parian, which let middle-class people have the sort of "marble" ornaments that previously only the super-rich could have. [modern ones of course might be some sort of pretend Parian for people who can't afford Parian...]

Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.

This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.

shimobaatar wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020 21:38

Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 01:29 I agree. Although "shows her around in the ship" is also possible. But would probably mean something like "he showed her around [his collection of belleek] in the ship", rather than showing her the parts of the ship itself. I can also maybe imagine something like someone complaining "I spend all day showing people around in the ship!", where the emphasis is strongly on the 'showing around' as a thing in itself (here, a thing he doesn't want to be doing), rather than on the result.

This isn't exactly on-topic, but the choice of preposition here is interesting to me. It's hard for me to think of a case where I'd say "in the ship" instead of "on the ship". I suppose it's a dialectal/idiolectal thing.

He shows her around on the ship -- They walk around on the deck, seeing the sails, the sea, sea gulls and other ships, being exposed to wind and weather.

He shows her around in the ship -- They walk around below, so they don't see the sails, and aren't exposed to wind and weather.

qwed117 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2020 10:29 If someone said something like "He showed her around in the building", to me that's like saying that "he paraded her around the building", where it would indicate that the person being "showed around" is being displayed to the other occupants of the building.

Yes, that's why I posted the question.

He showed her (a)round in/on the building/ship -- She is exposed to the other people in/on the building/ship.

He shows her round the ship -- He walks with her round the vessel laying in a dock. So they can walk round the ship, seeing the outside of the vessel. This way, she is exposed to the other people in the dock.

In German, there is "Er zeigte ihr das Schiff".