Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Do shrimp tacos technically count as fish tacos or are they different?

I believe this is the social issue of our generation.

[Lectorog]

Shrimp are not fish. Come now, man, be sensible about this. If you're eating a fish taco, nothing in there should have had legs.

[Frumple]

Definitely different. Entirely different species. Shrimp's closer to ant than fish. Fish are also somewhat more capable of experiencing pain, iirc. More developed nervous system. Shrimp tacos are the more moral taco.

I eat neither, though. Gimme some beef or chicken. I've said it before, the suffering makes the food taste better. Mankind spices its bread and meat with the tears of the ones that can't get awaylesser species.

The ones that can cry, anyway. I guess we just use the... I'unno, sweat? Chemical slurry that results from pain reactions? Of the rest. Something like that. Improves flavor.

Fish and shrimp aren't capable of suffering enough to make a good taco. Maybe octopi? There's my tiny question: Has anyone here had a calamari taco? Did it taste better than fish or shrimp tacos?

[Ultimuh]

Mmmmmmm.. shrimp..

[Guardian G.I.]

English contest question:
"Most areas in Africa are far cheaper to get  ___ than packaged travel agents would have you believe"
What phrasal verb should I use there?
"Get in", "get into" or something else?

[Loud Whispers]

Into.

[Reelya]

"into" doesn't seem like the obvious choice.

"get to" would seem more natural. "get around" is possible, but more clunky.

You just wouldn't say "I'm going into Montana" for example, you'd say "I'm going to Montana"

[MagmaMcFry]

"into" doesn't seem like the obvious choice.

"get to" would seem more natural. "get around" is possible, but more clunky.

You just wouldn't say "I'm going into Montana" for example, you'd say "I'm going to Montana"

Yes, but you also wouldn't say "I'm getting to Montana".

[Reelya]

But people do say "getting to Montana". Google search for the phrase. It's even used on the tourist sites for the state!

"I'm getting into Montana" sound EVEN WORSE, and most of the hits are for "getting into
Montana" state university etc.

Any way the form is "get" not "getting':

"How do you get to Montana"

vs

"How do you get into Montana"

The second doesn't sound right. the first does.

[Loud Whispers]

"into" doesn't seem like the obvious choice.

"get to" would seem more natural. "get around" is possible, but more clunky.

You just wouldn't say "I'm going into Montana" for example, you'd say "I'm going to Montana"

It's got the present infinitive "to get" and the accusative "to be" as "are", making it to be an ablative construction so "in" becomes "into."

[Frumple]

That sentence... would depend on what the agencies are saying the blockage is. If it's just travel, then it'd be "get to" (though "travel to" would probably fit better). If it's border or immigration issues or somethin' (bribing your way into the country, y'ken?), then it'd be "get into." Context!

[Reelya]

That was what I was thinking. If it said "easier" as the active verb, "Easier to get into" would make sense, i.e. the difficulty in crossing a border, whereas "Cheaper" implies the cost of travel to the place, hence "Cheaper to get to". Unless they're actually talking about bribing border guards xD

[Loud Whispers]

That's was what I was thinking. If it said "easier" as the active verb. "Easier to get into" would make sense, whereas "Cheaper" implies the cost of travel to the place, hence "Cheaper to get to". Unless they're talking about bribing border guards xD

But you would say "it is cheaper to get into," in that case too.
Also
       

• Easier = not a verb, it is an adverb.

Into is used when movement is conveyed, if I am IN something, no movement is shown. If I move INTO something, it shows I have moved from somewhere to where I am now.

[Reelya]

No it's not, because that's just not how English speaking people normally talk :/

"How do i get to XXXX" is normal.

"How do i get into XXXX" isn't normal.

The second one would confuse most people if used to describe travel to a country. For example "how do I get into America" might make people think you're trying to get a Green Card (or you're trying to sneak in as an illegal immigrant), rather than just travel there.

Examples:

"Australia is far cheaper to get to than people think"

...which uses the exact same construct we were discussing at the start. nobody ever substitutes "into" in this type of construction, unless you're talking about specific border crossing fees. The main fees are the plane tickets and other travel fees.

[Loud Whispers]

But that's just not how people normally talk :/

"How do I get to XXXX" is normal.

"How do I get into XXXX" isn't normal.

Where I come from that's normal.
Coincidentally that's also where the English language was invented.

If you're asking for directions "to" is used. If you're asking how to get inside something, i.e. a building, "into" is used.
If you're getting into a country, into is used. You wouldn't say you are getting to a country.

In any case how the people around you shouldn't affect written word, for the most part writing effects and grammatical rules stay constant with the addition of things like easy access dictionaries and reading material; and writing often differs greatly from the words we use; most of the slang native English speakers use would be easily understandable to most all other English speakers, yet would find little semblance when written or typed onto paper; yaamean?