I have some questions

[aaakknu]

Let me see if I can help you.

Thanks, but I have already sent it. I am going to rewrite it a bit for another summer school application, I'll show it to you then.

[atalarikt]

What are the differences of "seems like" and "seems as though"? I've always had an impression that the former means "a situation/thing that can be either exactly what is assumed or not", while the latter means "a situation/thing that is exactly what is assumed", but I'm not so sure now.

[linguoboy]

What are the differences ofbetween "seems like" and "seems as though"? I've always had anthe impression that the former means "a situation/thing that can be either exactly what is assumed or not", while the latter means "a situation/thing that is exactly what is assumed", but I'm not so sure now.

I don't think there's a hard-fast distinction. It's more a matter of style and register than anything. Using like as a conjunction was condemned as a barbarism well into my lifetime. That is, we were taught that it was okay to say "It looks like this isn't the case" but we should always write "It looks as though this is not the case".

The only difference grammatically is that like is both a preposition and a conjunction whereas as though can only be a conjunction, e.g.:

(1a) It seems like a mistake.
(1b) It seems like this is a mistake.
*(2a) It seems as though a mistake.
(2b) It seems as though this is a mistake.

[LifeDeath]

Hello! I've recently been so busy going to hospitals that hardly had time to ask my questions here. I wrote them all down to recall in future. Now that I'm getting better and start having more free time, I decided to ask some simple questions first.

1. I know this one isn't likely to be used ever, but I am interested in grammar here. If we used a cleft construction with "what", which sentence would be is correct?
"What I am is an engineer".
"What I am am an engineer".
I think it must be the first, but I have doubts.

2. I was watching a video where an English guy was explaining some mistakes that Russian speakers make. At 2:25 he says that the word "should" implies a choice. It's like you say that someone "should" do something, but it's not necessary. Then he provides an example: "You should pay before leaving the cafe". He says that "should" here is incorrect because it implies that it's possible to leave without paying. And the proper verb in this context is "got to" or "must". But I have a question, is that really incorrect? For some reason it never occurred to me that it could be. Probably I never thought of such situation. I think that "should" in this context means something like "you'd better" or it's just a reminder. So saying this sentence you just try to express something like "Don't forget to pay before we leave!". At least I can't see anything criminal here.
The next example is "You should first cross the street and then go two blocks further down". In this case I partly agree, "should" does sound like you're just telling to a guy what he can do but which is not necessary. But again, probably it's just a matter of dialect or style? I think native speakers will understand that a guy's merely instructing how to get to a destination, won't they?

3. In an English topic on a Russian forum I witnessed a discussion on how to use "be" as a modal verb. A girl said that it is always used either in past or present tense, even if we talk about future. But as a person who's been learning English for the last couple of years mostly by experiencing, I suppose that it's the usage people are simply used to rather than a rule. But I'm not sure that's why I'm asking you. Is it possible, at least in theory, to use "be to" in a future tense?
I came up with a couple of examples:
"Next month you will need to show me your plan and after that you will be to tell me how your research's going every week".
"Once you enter the hall you will be to ascend on a stage and start speaking".
"As we burglar into the house you'll be to turn off the alarm immediately".

4. You know, it is very hard to know what preposition to use when you connect an adjective with a gerund. And I assume it's only learned by practice. As far as I notice, "at" is used more often than any others, that's why I automatically put it in when speaking. I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it? I said something like "You're so adamant at trying not to see the obvious". Is "at" correct here or what would you use? I know that a simple way is not to use any preposition at all, but this approach doesn't work with all adjectives and sometimes the meaning even changes. So if you had to use a preposition, which would you choose?
Some more examples:
"He's always adamant at proving that what he's saying is right".
"You see, it wouldn't have been a row if she weren't so adamant at accusing me of what I never done".

[linguoboy]

Hello! I've recently been so busy going to hospitals that I've hardly had time to ask my questions here. I wrote them all down to recall in future. Now that I'm getting better and starting to have more free time, I've decided to ask some simple questions first.

I'm glad to hear you're doing better.

1. I know this one isn't likely to be used ever, but I am interested in the grammar here. If we used a cleft construction with "what", which sentence would be is correct?
"What I am is an engineer".
"What I am am an engineer".
I think it must be the first, but I have doubts.

You're correct; it's the first.

It's helpful to keep in mind that the non-cleft version of this sentence is considered to be "An engineer is what I am". When the what-clause is moved to the front, the verb agreement doesn't change.

2. I was watching a video where an English guy was explaining some mistakes that Russian speakers make. At 2:25 he says that the word "should" implies a choice. It's like you say that someone "should" do something, but it's not necessary. Then he provides an example: "You should pay before leaving the cafe". He says that "should" here is incorrect because it implies that it's possible to leave without paying. And the proper verb in this context is "got to" or "must". But I have a question, is that really incorrect? For some reason it never occurred to me that it could be. Probably I never thought of such situation. I think that "should" in this context means something like "you'd better" or it's just a reminder. So saying this sentence you just try to express something like "Don't forget to pay before we leave!". At least I can't see anything criminal here.

I have to agree with him here. "Should" always implies that the action is optional. "You should do X" is roughly equivalent to "It's better if you do X". Saying "You should pay before leaving the cafe" makes it sounds like it's possible to pay after leaving the cafe, but that it's better if you pay before. That's not how cafes work though. You have to pay before leaving the cafe or else it's considered theft.

Let's take another example: Some trains have conductors who will sell you a ticket after you've boarded the train. But if they think you're trying to ride without a ticket, they will fine you. So someone might say, "You should buy a ticket before boarding the train." This implies that buying a ticket after you board is a possibility, but it's not the best choice to make.

On the other hand, some trains require you to have a ticket in hand before you're even allowed to board. In this case saying "You should buy a ticket before boarding the train" is confusing. Buying a ticket after you board isn't the best choice, it's the only choice, so it would be better to say "You have to/need to/must buy a ticket before boarding the train".

The next example is "You should first cross the street and then go two blocks further down". In this case I partly agree, "should" does sound like you're just telling to a guy what he can do but which is not necessary. But again, probably it's probably just a matter of dialect or style? I think native speakers will understand that a guy's merely instructingexplaining how to get to a destination, won't they?

Again, using "should" here implies options. Presumably there's more than one route which leads from here to the destination and the speaker is presenting you with what they consider the best route. If the only to reach the destination from where you are requires crossing the street before continuing on, then I wouldn't use "should" here.

3. In an English topic on a Russian forum I witnessed a discussion on how to use "be" as a modal verb. A girl said that it is always used either in the past or the present tense, even if we when talking about the future. But as a person who's been learning English for the last couple of years mostly by experiencingthrough experience, I suppose that it's the usage people are simply used to rather than a rule. But I'm not sure that's why I'm asking you. Is it possible, at least in theory, to use "be to" in a future tense?
I came up with a couple of examples:
"Next month you will need to show me your plan and after that you will be to tell me how your research's going every week".
"Once you enter the hall you will be to ascend on a stage and start speaking".
"As we burglar into the house you'll be to turn off the alarm immediately".

This are all completely ungrammatical.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the use of be as a "modal verb". From your examples, it seems like you are talking about the deontic construction be + INF. In that case, she's absolutely right that this construction only works with the simple present or simple past tense of be. If you want to use a future construction, then you need to a completely different expression, e.g.:

"Next month you will need to show me your plan and after that you will behave to tell me how your research's going every week".
"Once you enter the hall you will be to ascend on athe stage and start speaking".
"As we burglarbreak into the house you'll be required to turn off the alarm immediately"

Remember that will is already a modal verb and that its meaning is more than just simple future. It is often used to express an indirect command:

"You will forget we ever had this conversion if you know what's good for you."

4. You know, it is very hard to know what preposition to use when you connect an adjective with a gerund. And I assume it's only learned by practice. As far as I've noticed, "at" is used more often than any others, that's why I automatically put it in when speaking. I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it? I said something like "You're so adamant at trying not to see the obvious". Is "at" correct here or what would you use? I know that a simple way is not to use any preposition at all, but this approach doesn't work with all adjectives and sometimes the meaning even changes. So if you had to use a preposition, which would you choose?
Some more examples:
"He's always adamant at proving that what he's saying is right".
"You see, it wouldn't have been a row if she weren't so adamant at accusing me of what I never done".

I would use about:

"You're so adamant about trying not to see the obvious."
"He's always adamant about proving that what he's saying is right"
"You see, it wouldn't have been a row if she weren't so adamant about accusing me of what I've never done".

Sometimes dictionary entries will tell you the preposition associated with an adjective in particular constructions. Unfortunately, none of the ones I looked at for adamant do this.

[Naava]

This are all completely ungrammatical.

Did you do this on purpose...?

Sometimes dictionary entries will tell you the preposition associated with an adjective in particular constructions. Unfortunately, none of the ones I looked at for adamant do this.

Merriab-Webster and Vocabulary.com do.

[linguoboy]

This are all completely ungrammatical.

Did you do this on purpose...?

This is a mistake I make often for some reason. Most of the time I catch it in proofreading, but not always. (I never make it in speech, as far as I know.)

Sometimes dictionary entries will tell you the preposition associated with an adjective in particular constructions. Unfortunately, none of the ones I looked at for adamant do this.

Merriab-Webster and Vocabulary.com do.

Thanks!

In your humble opinion, Naava, which is the most helpful dictionary of English for a learner?

[LifeDeath]

Thank you very much!

"Should" always implies that the action is optional.

The way I thought the world to be turns upside down now. I didn't really know it implies another option. It must mean that whenever I've used this word

I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it?

I think there should be a better word than "consult"

I guess it should be something like "reserved" or "taken". Don't you think so?

But is seems that the last word should be the adjective "strange", right?

I can't really explain this it just seems like it should be like that

But this time I noticed that it should mean something completely different

etc etc I didn't mean what it's intended to mean. Since there's not such thing as optionality in the grammar, theres a correct way to say something or incorrect (except some instances, like vocabulary choosement). But still I feel that using "should" isn't incorrect in those examples, probably because I've learned this through experience looking at how native speakers use it.

Some trains have conductors who will sell you a ticket after you've boarded the train. But if they think you're trying to ride without a ticket, they will fine you.

I suppose such system must work in Russia too, but it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to go without paying.

I also wanted to ask a couple of more simple questions today.

1. The reflexive form of singular "they" should end at "self" or only "selves"? Like "Whoever will try to do this will need to show themself".

2. How can I call a person who I'm communicating with? Google translates it as "interlocutor" and I even used this word a couple of times. But now it seems to awkward to me to use it in a casual conversation. It's like a specialized word from some technical literature.
I might suppose that "listener" would work, but would it? Can I use it even if though I communicate through gestures? Or by letters? Or is there another word?

[Naava]

In your humble opinion, Naava, which is the most helpful dictionary of English for a learner?

Just letting you know I've seen your question and I'm going to answer (eventually). I've had lots to do lately and right now I'm too tired to do anything useful, but I'll be back!

[Dormouse559]

I also wanted to ask a couple of more simple questions today.

1. Should the reflexive form of singular "they" should end at in "self" or only "selves"? Like "Whoever will try to do this will need to show themself".

Both options work. "Themself" makes more sense to me on an intellectual level, but I regularly use "themselves".

Note that your example sentence is awkwardly phrased. Did you mean "Whoever wants to try doing this …"?

2. How What can I call (or "How can I refer to") a person who I'm communicating with? Google translates it as "interlocutor" and I've even used this word a couple of times. But now it seems too awkward to me to use it in a casual conversation. It's like a specialized word from some technical literature.
I might suppose that "listener" would work, but would it? Can I use it even if though I communicate through gestures? Or by letters? Or is there another word?

"Listener" works for spoken communication. There's also "addressee", though it sounds a bit technical, like "interlocutor". I usually say "conversation partner".

[linguoboy]

"Should" always implies that the action is optional.

The way I thought the world to be turnshas been turned upside down now. I didn't really know it implied another option. It must mean that whenever I've used this word

I used the word "adamant", which preposition should I use with it?

I think there should be a better word than "consult"

I guess it should be something like "reserved" or "taken". Don't you think so?

But is seems that the last word should be the adjective "strange", right?

I can't really explain this it just seems like it should be like that

But this time I noticed that it should mean something completely different

etc etc I didn't mean what it's intended to mean. Since there's not such thing as optionality in the grammar, there's a correct way to say something or incorrect (except some instances, like vocabulary choosementchoice). But still I feel that using "should" isn't incorrect in those examples, probably because I've learned this through experience looking at how native speakers use it.

another option ≠ another correct option. "You should say it this way because the way you said it is wrong" is absolutely a correct way to use "should" in English. You almost always have the option to do something the wrong way (and there are no language police to arrest you).

But first things first. This:

There's no such thing as optionality in the grammar, there's a correct way to say something or incorrect

is an inaccurate statement. "Correct" is a term from prescriptive grammar. (And I know I've gone through the distinction between "prescriptivism" and "descriptivsim" with you before.) But my approach is descriptive and if there's one thing I want you to take away from these exchanges it's that there are a range of acceptable usages in English.

In fact, there is a robust continuum between things no competent speaker of English would deliberately say and things which every speaker would regard as the preferred way to say something. In-between there is a lot of variation. There are usages which are acceptable in one dialect (or one register of a dialect) but not in others. Prescriptivists would call these usages "incorrect" but they're not in the same category as, for instance, using Russian prepositions in place of English ones (something Russian-English bilinguals who frequently codeswitch might find acceptable but no one else would).

When I answer your questions, I make a real effort to distinguish between these different categories. It may not seem that way when I revise your texts because I either correct something or I don't, but I try to correct only the most egregious errors (i.e. things everyone would consider wrong or things which sound very unnatural to my ears). I leave in a fair bit which is awkward or unusual. That's why it's important of you to ask questions when you don't understand why I've corrected something (or not corrected it), because there could be more than one reason for this.

Some trains have conductors who will sell you a ticket after you've boarded the train. But if they think you're trying to ride without a ticket, they will fine you.

I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too, but it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.

[aaakknu]

What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?

[LifeDeath]

Thank you guys. [*]

Note that your example sentence is awkwardly phrased. Did you mean "Whoever wants to try doing this …"?

Well I just wanted to use both parts in the future tense. I didn't really think about its meaning.

But why is a gerund preferable here? I know that after "try" we can use both a gerund or an infinitive. I'd even venture to say that with most verbs I can 'sense' the difference though it's usually pretty hard to formulate and explain. But with the verb "do", is there really a big difference? Like:
"Whoever tries to do it will be punished".
"Whoever tries doing it will be punished".

There are usages which are acceptable in one dialect (or one register of a dialect) but not in others. Prescriptivists would call these usages "incorrect" but they're not in the same category as, for instance, using Russian prepositions in place of English ones

I always thought of it as if there are usages that are optional or belong to a particular style (just as you said) which are accepted by native speakers from any part of the US so they understand them though this may be not how they use it themselves, this is still a 'native' usage for them. And there are things that are completely unidiomatic and jarring, such as omitting the articles, using wrong prepositions, etc. For example, when an educated English speaker hears this "Yo man! She don't remember nothing I told ya!" he accepts this as an idiomatic usage though very regional, but if he heard "I found this in internet" he'd be really irritated by the incorrect use and non-native sound of it. So I think the main difference here is about being idiomatic, no matter how far from a standard usage and not being idiomatic, no matter how well fit into standards of English.
Here's the example I recently saw in an English topic. I think the sentence "Not just once a week say something like "Hello, how are you and etc." is correct in terms of the grammar but it is so terribly awkward for an English ear. I know it is translated from Russian word by word. And that's what I try to avoid. I realize that I sound unnatural most of the time but that's what I learn to get rid of and I know it takes time. I suppose this is due to my poor vocabulary, and this becomes a real problem when it seems that you've faced a wall and there's no sources to learn new words and expressions from.

When I answer your questions, I make a real effort to distinguish between these different categories. It may not seem that way when I revise your texts because I either correct something or I don't, but I try to correct only the most egregious errors

Sometimes to learn or try something new, I use something in a way I've never used before, but which is highly familiar for me for some reason. So if it goes uncorrected, then I pick it up and continue to use it. Of course I do this with things that I'm about 80 percent sure are correct. I think this is the way to vary one's speech and learn new expressions.

That's why it's important of you to ask questions when you don't understand why I've corrected something (or not corrected it), because there could be more than one reason for this.

I usually understand most of corrections you make. But even when I don't, I think that asking about it can be irritating. So I take it for granted and try never to make a similar mistake again.

But today I'd like to ask about a correction.

I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too

Why is "must" incorrect here? As I remember, you told me there's two types of modality: epistemic and deontic modality. So what if "must" in this example represents an epistemic modality? It's like I think something should be, but never checked it myself. For example: "You must be very proud of your son? Are you?", "You must be that guy who's been trying to find me for two years? So if it is you, what do you want?"

it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.

I guess I overuse the progressive aspect. But what if when I'm saying this sentence, I imagine the very procces of it? I mean how controllers ARE checking the tickets. Can it be possible to phrase it like that?

[*] Can I use "guys" to refer to a group of people regardless of their genders? Or only when I talk about men?

[Dormouse559]

What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?

Do you have more context?

Note that your example sentence is awkwardly phrased. Did you mean "Whoever wants to try doing this …"?

Well I just wanted to use both parts in the future tense. I didn't really think about its meaning.

"Whoever", "whatever", "whenever" and the like aren't usually accompanied by the future tense. At least not in the form of "will [infinitive]"; "be going to" is more common. So you could have said, "Whoever is going to try doing this …"

But why is a gerund preferable here? I know that after "try" we can use both a gerund or an infinitive. I'd even venture to say that with most verbs I can 'sense' the difference though it's usually pretty hard to formulate and explain. But with the verb "do", is there really a big difference? Like:
"Whoever tries to do it will be punished".
"Whoever tries doing it will be punished".

The issue with your sentence wasn't "do" specifically but that "try" was a to-infinitive. While "try" can be followed by either the to-infinitive or the gerund, they aren't exactly equal. Normally, I use the to-infinitive after "try", so it makes sense initially to go with that. But that results in two to-infinitives in a row, which can sound repetitive (Whoever wants to try to do this …). Luckily, "try" can optionally switch to the gerund, which allows the sentence to flow much better (Whoever wants to try doing this …).

[*] Can I use "guys" to refer to a group of people regardless of their genders? Or only when I talk about men?

Yes, though I wouldn't be surprised if this is limited to dialects like mine, where "you guys" is a second-person plural pronoun.

[aaakknu]

What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?

Do you have more context?

I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.

[dEhiN]

What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?

Do you have more context?

I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.

It's taken from a book. It's a line that's part of a descriptive paragraph full of metaphors. You can see the line and the paragraph here. Even after reading the whole paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what exactly a "breathing building" refers to, and how that might be different from a "regular building", but it's meant to be a metaphor.

[Dormouse559]

What does "the size of a breathing building" mean?

Do you have more context?

I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.

It's taken from a book. It's a line that's part of a descriptive paragraph full of metaphors. You can see the line and the paragraph here. Even after reading the whole paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what exactly a "breathing building" refers to, and how that might be different from a "regular building", but it's meant to be a metaphor.

Well, Google doesn't let me view it, but based on the full sentence, I'm 90 percent sure that the breathing building is a metaphor for the speaker's body. The building is breathing because it's the speaker's body.

[dEhiN]

I have practically no context. I have just the sentence "I felt myself the size of a breathing building (D. Thomas)." It is probably taken from a book.

It's taken from a book. It's a line that's part of a descriptive paragraph full of metaphors. You can see the line and the paragraph here. Even after reading the whole paragraph, I'm not entirely sure what exactly a "breathing building" refers to, and how that might be different from a "regular building", but it's meant to be a metaphor.

Well, Google doesn't let me view it, but based on the full sentence, I'm 90 percent sure that the breathing building is a metaphor for the speaker's body. The building is breathing because it's the speaker's body.[/quote]
Oh, that would make a lot of sense! I tried to analyse it as a single noun or object: a breathing building. But seeing it as a building that's breathing makes sense.

[Dormouse559]

Oh, that would make a lot of sense! I tried to analyse it as a single noun or object: a breathing building. But seeing it as a building that's breathing makes sense.

Yeah, that's what I thought at first. I could imagine it referring to a building's HVAC system.

[linguoboy]

There are usages which are acceptable in one dialect (or one register of a dialect) but not in others. Prescriptivists would call these usages "incorrect" but they're not in the same category as, for instance, using Russian prepositions in place of English ones

I always thought of it as if there are usages that are optional or belong to a particular style (just as you said) which are accepted by native speakers from any part of the US. So they understand them though this may be not how they use itthem themselves, these are still a 'native' usages for them. And there are things that are completely unidiomatic and jarring, such as omitting the articles, using the wrong prepositions, etc. For example, when an educated English speaker hears this "Yo man! She don't remember nothing I told ya!" he accepts this as an idiomatic usage though very regional, but if he heard "I found this in internet" he'd be really irritated by the incorrect use and non-native sound of it.

That's basically correct. However, there is a minority of speakers who would call both of these examples "not English" and believe learners should be taught not to use either of them ever.

So I think the main difference here is about being idiomatic, no matter how far from a standard usage and not being idiomatic, no matter how well fit into standards of English.

That's certainly what I consider primary, but knowing in which contexts you can use a particular expression and what it suggests to your audience when you do choose to use it is almost as important (and becomes more important the more idiomatic your usage becomes).

Here's the example I recently saw in an English topic. I think the sentence "Not just once a week say something like "Hello, how are you and etc." is correct in terms of the grammar but it is so terribly awkward for an English ear.

Agreed.

I realize that I sound unnatural most of the time but that's what I'm learning to get rid of and I know it takes time. I suppose this is due to my poor vocabulary, and this becomes a real problem when it seems that you've facedhit a wall and there's no sources to learn new words and expressions from.

There are all kinds of places to learn new words and expressions. I've learned a lot by interacting with people, both in real life and online, but probably most of my vocabulary has been picked up from reading. Reading also helps give you an ear for what sounds idiomatic and what doesn't.

Sometimes to learn or try something new, I use something in a way I've never used it before, but which is highly familiar for me for some reason. So if it goes uncorrected, then I pick it up and continue to use it. Of course I do this with things that I'm about 80 percent sure are correct. I think this is the way to vary one's speech and learn new expressions.

It's certainly one way.

I suppose such a system mustcould work in Russia too

Why is "must" incorrect here? As I remember, you told me there's two types of modality: epistemic and deontic modality. So what if "must" in this example represents an epistemic modality? It's like I think something should be, but never checked it myself. For example: "You must be very proud of your son? Are you?", "You must be that guy who's been trying to find me for two years? So if it is you, what do you want?"

Ah, I see what you're going for now. "Must" still sounds very odd here. Perhaps it's because you've led off with "I suppose" so it's already clear that you're introducing a supposition. That makes it seem like "must" should be interpreted deontically otherwise it would be redundant. Do you see what I mean?

it's kind of hard to imagine how they would be telling people who got on a train and are going to buy a ticket from those who are intending to goride without paying.

I guess I overuse the progressive aspect. But what if when I'm saying this sentence, I imagine the very process of it? I mean how controllers ARE checking the tickets. Can it be possible to phrase it like that?

The issue is that "tell" in this context is like "know", i.e. it reflects a mental state more than an action. So the progressive here is as awkward as "how would they be knowing".

[*] Can I use "guys" to refer to a group of people regardless of their genders? Or only when I talk about men?

As Dormouse said, in dialects where "you guys" functions as a default second-person plural pronoun, it is generally interpreted as gender-neutral (although I do know some native speakers of those dialects who disagree). Speakers of these dialects may also find "guys" gender-neutral when used in direct address (e.g. "Guys, when are we leaving for the restaurant?") But it will most likely be perceived as gendered when used as a generic noun, e.g. "The rest of the guys will meet us there".

That said, norms around this usage are changing rapidly in American English. "You all" or "y'all" is spreading to dialects where it was not found a generation ago precisely because it is unambiguously gender-neutral.