[admin]
I made a copy of the original here in the off-topic forums for those who wish to debate grammar.
-JB
[/admin]

a few people are Using this cyberoro app on the I-Phone/I-Pad
it would be helpful to avoid some guesswork if we knew what a few buttons functions were
its Korean.

I figured out how to play games and go to the problems through trail and error;
but i still would like to figure out the translation to some of the other main buttons.



What button Does What?



same question for the 3 bottom buttons and the top left button?



same question for the 4 buttons at the bottom and two buttons at the top?

Thank you in advance
i appreciate your kindness?

_________________
standing still means going backwards

Perhaps you could get a faster reply if you asked for someone who knows Korean.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

I have no problems with "that" here. But I'm only a native speaker

The underlying functions are unknown to me but subject to that, the buttons seem to be for:

TOP
Game room, Waiting Room, Waiting Room Chat
Live broadcast, Search, Wagering
Replay game records, Classroom, Settings

MIDDLE
Trial moves, Position analysis, Game info

BOTTOM
Try again, Hint, Previous, Next (The text above is variable commentary - here B1 may be surprising but is the right answer).

Thank u thank you thank You all

Well, it seems that the use of "that" for "who" has already been accepted as "normal, but informal" in english. For perspective, it could only be seen as an insult to use "das" instead of "der" in german---I believe that this is quite apparent when you think about it.

Language evolves. I see no problem with new language constructs that improve the language by giving its user a way to express some idea in a more concise, unambiguous, or exact manner.

Nevertheless, I apologize for the rude interjection, since it seems that the native speakers do allow this sloppiness.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

I'm not quite sure what we are supposed to make of an apology to one person which is replaced by an insult to virtually all native speakers of English now branded as sloppy, but I think it deserves some sort of prize for chutzpah.

But as you appear to care about English grammar, you may wish to know that the last part of you sentence would read much better as "since it seems that native speakers do allow this sloppiness".

[OFFTOPIC]

Not being a native speaker, I'm a bit confused. I always thought that "that" is a pronoun that can be used for both persons and things, while "which" and "who" are specific.

For example:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/ ... at_who.htm


Doing a quick search, I found lots of other references, going both ways, but generally the references that say "that" can be used in both ways seem more credible to me. The ones that say "that" is strictly for things more have the feeling of rules of thumb, while the ones that say "that" can be used for both often cite usage in dictionaries or literature.

Can any native speaker help me out? Because that's an area where a simple error that really comes from not knowing the language well could easily insult someone.

[/OFFTOPIC]

I am a native speaker, and I sometimes use "that" when I refer to people. For example, I'll probably more likely say, "He's the guy that just walked through the door" rather than "He's the guy who just walked through the door". Maybe it has to do with speaking style.

I don't really study English grammar, but using "that" to refer to people sounds fine to me.

I don't think people would be offended by being called, "that", either. For example, if I ask, "Who is that?", a normal response is "That's <X>.", where <X> is the name of the person in question... I guess that's a different use of "that", but it doesn't take away from the point that I'm not offended to be referred to as "that".

_________________
be immersed

Luckily, I don't think it could, unless they were a pedant.

If you say "the fire extinguisher who I carried", it will sound funny and ungrammatical, ditto if you say "the policeman which arrested me". I can't think of a use here that would be insulting.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

To me, "which" seems unnatural, whereas I'm more OK with "that". In other words, "the policeman that arrested me" and "the policeman who arrested me" both sound better than "the policeman which arrested me".

_________________
be immersed

Kirby: I think we agree--it sounds funny and ungrammatical. I was just telling flovermind that I didn't think you could insult anyone misusing the terms.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Yes. I also thought we agreed. Maybe I should have prefixed my post with that.

_________________
be immersed

But in some circumstances it does sound funny, doesn't it? "Which policeman?" "The policeman that says hi to me."

omg, every understood. idc wtf u ppl use s long s it's understandable English.
back Go stuff now.

_________________
Laurens
Go school: freegame's Teaching School
Author of: The Next Move a book for 15-3kyu players.

I regularly visit two forums.

Here is an example of the language used on the other forum.

"Dem jawnz, nah mean brah?"

Lemme just say that we should count ourselves lucky with the grammar.

I would feel terrible about this thread being completely derailed, but it appears as though the OP's questions were answered.

I agree that abbreviations, slang, grammatical errors, and the like are all pretty much acceptable on internet forums. That said, I can't resist stating my objection to the BBC page's failure to distinguish restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. Its example "Where are the Radiohead CDs which / that your brother borrowed last week?" is telling because the sentence could have two meanings; is the speaker looking for the Radiohead CDs, all of which were borrowed by the brother? Or is the speaker asking only for the particular Radiohead CDs that the brother borrowed?

This can be important-- for example, I recently read a passage similar to "The corporation's responses which must be verified are to be submitted to the district office." The phrase "which must be verified" could mean that all of the corporation's responses much be verified, or that only the responses that need to be verified must be sent to the office.

Admittedly, sometimes substituting "that" for "which" does not create ambiguity.

Again, I'll never criticize someone's grammar on the forums (unless invited), and I won't even think less of those who (that?) make mistakes . At worst, I'll ask for clarification if something is incomprehensible. I commit much egregious errors all the time.

I downloaded the iPod client a few weeks ago. Most of it has been translated to English in the meantime.

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

This distinction has been fabricated. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 00918.html, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1689 (there are many other discussions scattered around that website).

The example is poor. No amount of fiddling with that and which will make the sentence clear, because it will only help for people who have been explicitly instructed about an invented grammatical distinction. Better to write clearly: "The corporation's responses must be verified, and then submitted to the district office" would be one possible disambiguation. Every English speaker can understand that, not just those with a lot of knowledge of prescriptive grammar.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I'm pretty lenient with most grammatical errors. I'm not even a native speaker of English, so who am I to criticize other people's English. Especially if they aren't native speakers either.

But there are some mistakes that simply go to far. And they are mainly made by native speakers. "Their", "there", and "they're" don't mean the same, and neither do "your" and "you're". This kind of mistake really breaks my reading flow. I first notice that the sentence doesn't parse correctly. Then I need to locate the error and mentally fix it. And finally I can re-read the fixed sentence.

And incoherent or extremely sloppy writing annoys me too(this does not apply to chat). If somebody can't be bothered to to write "you" or "are", which should I bother reading what he wrote?

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.