Re: (EE) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Posted: 09 Feb 2020 11:54
Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
https://cbbforum.com/
That's how a non-native could interpret that sentences.
That's what was intented.Typically just "he showed her around the ship" means that she is being given a tour of the ship.
I would understand what someone meant by "in the ship", but I stand by what I said about it not quite sounding right to me, personally.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47He 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.shimobaatar wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020 21:38This 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.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.
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.
As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47Yes, 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".
As I said, I've used Leo:shimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively. And to me, it's definitely "show around", not "show round". In fact, saying "show round" makes it much more likely, to me, that the 'parade or exhibit' sense is meant.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:44As I said, I've used Leoshimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
That's not how English works, I'm afraid, at least IMD. If there's a boat without a deck, you're probably 'in' it. If there's a ship with a deck, you're probably 'on' it, even below decks. Likewise, you're probably on a submarine rather than in it, wherever the submarine is (and a submarine, though enclosed, is technically a boat, not a ship).A ship by definition fully encloses the people "in" it, i. e. if they're below. They also can be "on" the deck of the ship. A vessel is a ship, when it has a "deck", so you can "go below this deck" (German: unter Deck gehen). If it doesn't have this, it's just a boat. There might be different kinds of boats, and ships with more than one deck. Even a spaceship allows astronauts to be "on" it: Perry Rhodan 3034: Ancaisin. People can be even "on" a submarine, when it swims on the surface.
If this online dictionary is going to be treated as the highest authority in the end, then I'm afraid I don't see the point in asking for input from native speakers in a thread like this.Salmoneus wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 17:09I think our point is that we didn't use Leo, because we actually speak the language natively.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:44As I said, I've used Leoshimobaatar wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 14:24 As I noted earlier, I would say - or at least write - "around", not "round". Maybe this is the tone you're going for, but to me, "round" looks very informal, like the writer is trying to represent a spoken shortening of "around".
Although maybe this is just another dialectal issue, and for some people, this is fine in formal writing?
Yes, I interpreted those 4 sentences in the same way as you did, as a native speaker though bilingual.Tanni wrote: ↑09 Feb 2020 10:47He 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.
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.
No, that would make no sense. That would obviously be a pandademic. A sudden proliferation of pans, or of manifestations of the Great God Pan, would however be called 'pandemics'.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑14 Mar 2020 18:16 Anyone else think it’s unfair the pandemic has nothing to do with pandas?
You're welcome!