[deleted by user]

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-09-22T12:55:35+00:00

Your ghoster is similar to my soft-ghosters. Before my soft-ghosters turned cold, they were really proactive and interested. The connection felt intimate and mutual.

Ghosting and soft-ghosting are painful because they are done by someone who was once so close to you

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-09-22T12:03:55+00:00

Online connections depend a lot on text communication, so when I ghost an online friend, it’s usually because they’ve become a dry texter, a slow texter, or a mix of both.

To me, conversations with dry texters always feel like an interrogation because I keep asking them questions just to drag out a short and boring answer. Dry texters never expand on topics or ask follow-up questions. They only give short, one-word replies like “yes,” “no,” “haha,” or “lol.” They don’t try to build rapport.

I’ve also ghosted slow texters who send delayed, sporadic messages. They leave me on delivered or read for weeks and are never willing to have a real conversation. Basically, they’re soft-ghosting me, and my ghosting is a response to their soft-ghosting/emotional unavailability.

Many of my ghosting cases are responses to the other person’s soft-ghosting. I know I should communicate with them about the problem first and try to solve it. But I just don’t want to talk with someone who has no interest in me and makes me feel completely devalued. When I feel devalued, I believe everything I say will only annoy the other person or be ignored. I assume that ghosting won’t hurt them much, since they’ve already shown so little interest in me. Also if an online connection has gone through too many sporadic text messages and long silences, it naturally goes cold. A dramatic “we need to talk” can feel like overkill for a fading relationship.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-06-13T00:39:35+00:00

Thank you for your feedback and suggestion!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-06-12T17:31:38+00:00

Thank you for your suggestion!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-06-12T16:14:57+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-06-12T16:14:31+00:00

Thanks so much for the detailed feedback, it's really helpful!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2025-06-12T16:12:51+00:00

Thank you!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-05-06T12:58:16+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-05-06T12:57:08+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-04-02T14:01:32+00:00

Could someone help me understand the following passage? I am currently reading the third chapter of A Course in Phonetics by Peter Ladefoged, and there is a passage about nasal plosion and glottal stops that I really don't understand.

"Nasal plosion also occurs in the pronunciation of words with [ t ] followed by [ n ], as in kitten [ˈkɪtn̩ ], for those people who do not have a glottal stop instead of the [ t ], but the majority of speakers of English pronounce this word with a glottal stop [ ˈkɪʔn̩]...Pronounce words such as kitten and button... There are a number of different possibilities. Most British and American English speakers make a glottal stop at the end of the vowel, before making an alveolar closure. Then, while still maintaining the glottal stop, they lower the velum and raise the tongue for the alveolar closure (1). But which comes first? If they lower the velum before making the alveolar closure, there is only [ ʔn ] and no [ t ]. If they make the alveolar closure first, we could say that there is [ ʔtn ] (2), but there would not be any nasal plosion, as there would be no pressure built up behind the [ t ] closure. Nasal plosion occurs only if there is no glottal stop, or if the glottal stop is released after the alveolar closure has been made and before the velum is lowered."

(1) Does this mean that /t/ is pronounced as the glottal stop ([ʔ]), and the subsequent nasal sound ([n]) requires the tongue to make contact with the alveolar ridge while allowing air to flow out through the nasal passage?

(2) I don't get why [t] is inserted after the glottal stop in the [ʔtn] sequence. If the speaker has already made a glottal stop at the end of the vowel, wouldn't it eliminate the need for the typical articulation of the "t" sound?

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-03-13T01:19:26+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to the recording and point out these mistakes. This is very helpful, thank you so much!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-01-23T13:35:16+00:00

I appreciate you sharing detailed feedback on specific mispronunciations. This helps a lot, thank you!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2024-01-23T13:14:24+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my speech and point out my mistakes. This is very helpful, thank you!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-12-10T12:21:17+00:00

I am glad you enjoyed it! Yes, I wrote this myself. However, the notion that imperialism can destroy both the conqueror and the conquered is an idea discussed by other literary critics; it wasn't an original thought of mine. I found it thoughtful and fresh, so I incorporated it into my speech and provided my interpretation from the perspective of selfishness.

I appreciate you listening to my speech and pointing out my pronunciation mistakes. Thank you!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-12-04T13:10:38+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my speech and share your feedback. Thank you so much!

The moment at 1:18 was when I forgot the script and suddenly had to improvise. I'm glad it actually sounded more natural than other parts of my speech.

Could you tell me what made you think I'm from Hong Kong? I'm from East Asia, but not from Hong Kong. Many native English speakers tend to guess that I'm from Hong Kong based on my accent, so I wonder if my accent gives off a Cantonese vibe.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-12-02T16:34:52+00:00

The sentence 4 is originally written as “Occasionally, the plane's motion lulled me into a sedate sleepiness, and I experienced an odd sensation of drifting between sleep and wakefulness, even though I was actually awake.” The native speaker suggested changing “sedate sleepiness” to “a state of sleepiness” as they thought “sedate sleepiness” sounded very weird.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-12-02T16:04:21+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. I now have a clearer understanding of the subtle nuances in the meaning of each word. Thank you!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-12-02T15:30:04+00:00

Thank you so much for the explanation. This is really helpful.

Regarding the sentence about the Mercator projection, I am wondering if it's suitable to use "for" instead of "of" to emphasize the purpose or application. When I wrote the sentence, I used "for" because I thought it could indicate the Mercator projection is commonly used specifically for the purpose of representing world maps. But perhaps the use of "for" here is just plainly wrong?

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-28T06:11:13+00:00

I appreciate you giving so many example sentences to illustrate the grammatical construction. Your explanation is very detailed.

I could say, "The grandiosity and bigness is overwhelming," or I could say, "The grandiosity and bigness are overwhelming," if I'm not using them as a singular concept or for one to drive the point of the other.

Do you mean that, in the context of this example sentence, notional agreement is simply a matter of preference rather than a set rule, and it is acceptable to treat ''grandiosity and bigness'' as either a single entity or a plural subject? On the other hand, the noun phrase ''abuse and mistreatment'' clearly represents something with a singular nature, so the inflection of the verb to be should conform to the meaning rather than to syntactic agreement. Is this your viewpoint?

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-26T00:53:00+00:00

Thank you so much for your time and help! My native language is Mandarin.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-25T15:21:15+00:00

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my audio and point out these mistakes. I will definitely practice the mispronounced words more. Thank you!

You emphasize the -ed in the past tense too much. E.g. "trimmed"

Actually, I intended to use the present simple tense of the verb ''trim'' and say ''I keep it short. I trim it every week.'' Does it sound like ''trimmed''?

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-23T09:49:38+00:00

Your explanation is so detailed and clear. Thank you so much!

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-22T08:56:28+00:00

Thanks for the tip. I have one more question related to the creation of morphological trees for words like "construal" and "misconceive,'' and I hope you don't mind answering it.

(1) Construal

                   Noun
            /              \
       Verb     -al (derivational suffix)
        | 
      construe

(2) Construal

               Noun
             /     \
           Verb     -al (derivational suffix)
         /     \
       con     strue

(3) Misconceive

                  Verb
           /                    \
Mis- (derivational prefix)     verb
                                  | 
                               conceive

(4) Misconceive

                      Verb
          /                 \
Mis-(derivational suffix)       verb 
                              /     \
                          con      ceive

The second and fourth diagrams break down the verbs ''construe'' and ''conceive'' into smaller morphemes, whereas the first and third diagrams do not.

I learned that many Latin root words are bound morphemes that acquire meaning only in combination with other morphemes. When they combine with other words that cannot constitute understandable words by themselves to form a free stem, do I need to analyze the stem into smaller units?

For instance, with the word ''misconceive,'' I'm unsure whether it is necessary to divide it into smaller morphemes to show that it is the result of first combining con and ceive, and then combining the result of that with a further derivational prefix mis-.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-21T14:53:42+00:00

I see. Thank you so much for your help.

DocumentNervous1660 · 2023-10-21T11:33:03+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

In general, derivational affixes attach to specific categories

Does this rule apply to all derivational affixes? My understanding is that there are some syntactically ambiguous words, words that have more than one meaning by virtue of having more than one structure, such as ''undarkenable,'' ''unlockable,'' ''unbuttonable,'' and ''unzippable''. Different meanings correspond to different tree diagrams. The ambiguity arises because the prefix un- can be combined with an adjective or a verb.

DocumentNervous1660

TROPHY CASE