IpseDixit - English

[IpseDixit]

Can "satisfied" also mean something like "convinced"? Because I'm watching Border Security Australia's Frontline and when immigration officers have to cancel or approve a visa, they always say "I'm (not) satisfied that you are a genuine tourist" and that sounds quite weird to me.

While "satisfied" would generally be similar to "happy", I don't really buy the interpretation Koko gave. "Satisfied that" pretty transparently means "convinced that" to me (can't say if I use the former regularly, though).

Ok, great. Thanks!

[Koko]

I've never heard that use of satisfy before. And the one I gave is pretty transparent to me . Satisfy to me can only mean: 1) to make one happy with/about something 2) to please. If it can be used instead of "convince," that is most definitely not a possible use in my dialect.

[linguoboy]

If it can be used instead of "convince,"

If? See definition #3. (Calling it "dated, literary" seems excessive to me, since it is still alive in bureaucratic usages like the example IpseDixit gave. "Formal" would seem more accurate. The OED [def. 7] doesn't give this meaning any sort of usage label, but the most recent example they have is from 1892.)

[Koko]

Non mi piace . Convince is good enough! Whatev.

[IpseDixit]

Are "I'm speechless" and "I'm lost for word" interchangeable?

[linguoboy]

Are "I'm speechless" and "I'm lost for word" interchangeable?

The idiom is "I'm at a loss for words" and yes, nearly so. The main exception is in the negative, e.g. "I've never seen you at a loss for words before" strikes me as a more natural thing to say than "I've never seen you speechless before".

[IpseDixit]

Thanks!

---

For a change I have a doubt about the present perfect vs the simple past.

In this video at 0:17, the woman says "he saw us" but personally I think I would've said "he's seen us" because it's something that has just happened (and moreover she doesn't give a precise time frame). So I wonder where the flaw is in my reasoning...

More in general I always have doubts whether to use the present perfect or the simple past in those instances where something has just happened or has happened very recently but there's no specified time period.

For example, I know that I'm supposed to say "the airplane landed 3 minutes ago", but what if 3 minutes ago is not expressly stated? In this case should I say "the airplane landed" or "the airplane has landed"?

----

A second question slightly related:

What's the difference between "he's lived in London for 4 years" and "he's been living in London for 4 years"?

[linguoboy]

What's the difference between "he's lived in London for 4 years" and "he's been living in London for 4 years"?

It's a subtle difference in emphasis. The latter makes it sound more temporary than the former. It also stresses the current and active nature of the activity. But I'm finding it hard to come up with contexts where it sounds odd. Even "He's been living in London for 40 years" or "He's been living in London his whole life" seem like unobjectionable statements.

[IpseDixit]

Thanks, what about the other question?

[Dormouse559]

In this video at 0:17, the woman says "he saw us" but personally I think I would've said "he's seen us" because it's something that has just happened (and moreover she doesn't give a precise time frame). So I wonder where the flaw is in my reasoning...

The simple past is correct here, and the present perfect would be, too. Switching to present perfect wouldn't change the literal meaning, but to me there is a slight, and hard-to-express, change in focus. The present perfect would imply a broader context to his seeing them, like "He's seen us, and now he's going to tell everyone." The simple past doesn't rule that broader context out; it just doesn't point toward it.

For example, I know that I'm supposed to say "the airplane landed 3 minutes ago", but what if 3 minutes ago is not expressly stated? In this case should I say "the airplane landed" or "the airplane has landed"?

Present perfect.

[IpseDixit]

For example, I know that I'm supposed to say "the airplane landed 3 minutes ago", but what if 3 minutes ago is not expressly stated? In this case should I say "the airplane landed" or "the airplane has landed"?

Present perfect.

But if "he saw us" sounds right to you, shouldn't "the airplane landed" also sound right to you? Where's the difference?

[Dormouse559]

Actually, you can say "The airplane landed", but the difference is the same as between "He saw us" and "He's seen us". "The airplane has landed" implies broader context (It's time to get ready to board), while the "The airplane landed" doesn't (We're not going to board that plane).

[linguoboy]

Thanks, what about the other question?

I'm not in a position to listen to the recording right now. As Dormouse says, the usage is very context-dependent and native use does differ. For instance, I remember eavesdropping on a conversation once which contained the line:

"Did you see him today?"

From the context, it was clear that this was simply a neutral inquiry. But I wouldn't have phrased it that way. The simple past has a distancing effect, implying that the time for seeing him today is somehow over. So this really only makes sense to me if an appointment is involved. Otherwise, I would ask, "Have you seen him today?"

With, "Did you eat today?" vs "Have you eaten today?" the situation is somewhat reversed. An appointment is assumed (since most people in our society eat three times a day), so simple past feels less marked to me. Pragmatically, "Have you eaten?" is more likely to function as an invitation--but again, for many American English-speakers, this distinction is weak if observed at all.

[IpseDixit]

I'd have another example from unilang to ask you about. In this post I wrote:

"I think you misread what snowman wrote... either that or it's me who can't make much sense out of your answer."

But maybe you've misread would've been better?

[Dormouse559]

Both are correct, but again present perfect implies context, usually a consequence of or reaction to the event. I imagine if someone said "I think you've misread what snowman wrote," they might be planning to explain what snowman actually meant. They could still do so after using the simple past, but I think present perfect makes that a little more likely.

[IpseDixit]

Thanks to both of you. I'll probably come back on this topic in the future because I find it quite tricky, but for now I'm quite satisfied with your explanations.

---

A totally different question: I'm watching a BBC documentary about anorexic children called "i'm a child anorexic", and I wonder what the noun - adjective inversion conveys to a native speaker. Does it make the title more poetic or is it something more than that?

[linguoboy]

A totally different question: I'm watching a BBC documentary about anorexic children called "i'm a child anorexic", and I wonder what the noun - adjective inversion conveys to a native speaker. Does it make the title more poetic or is it something more than that?

There's no "inversion" there. Anorexic is also a noun in English, and child can be used as the modifying element in a noun-noun compound, e.g.: child prodigy, child labourer, child bride, child soldier.

[IpseDixit]

Anorexic is also a noun in English

Didn't know that. :s

[linguoboy]

Anorexic is also a noun in English

Didn't know that. :s

Not unusual for medical conditions. Cf. "epileptic", "manic depressive", "amnesiac", etc.

[IpseDixit]

Anorexic is also a noun in English

Didn't know that. :s

Not unusual for medical conditions. Cf. "epileptic", "manic depressive", "amnesiac", etc.

Yep, didn't think of that.