Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

The_JokerGirl42 t1_ixyp8uq wrote

this would've been a great post if it was originally your thought but you just stole it.

16

J-DROP t1_ixyx83d wrote

Yeah we've all heard this one before, blew my mind the first time round

3

Adghar t1_ixytual wrote

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

4

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_ixymt9n wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1

JustSomeApparition t1_ixynd81 wrote

Ya' know... I never knew it was possible for someone to have a stutter in text form. The internet really is a miraculous place full of possibilities. 🤭

1

Jaded_genie t1_ixyznqj wrote

Question to the grammar buffs: Wouldn’t it be more correct to say “Before was was was, was had been is”?

1

RegularBasicStranger t1_ixyssrf wrote

Because people would have learned that when "before" is used before a part that has "was", it should follow the form "before x was x, x was y".

Such a form was created via generalising similar sentences to reduce neuron usage since redundancy will get reduced.

So the sentences "before Facebook was Meta, Facebook was Facebook" and "before Google was Alphabet, Google was Google" can be generalised to just "Google", "Alphabet" pair and "Facebook", "Meta" pair, reducing 3 neurons cost for the second sentence since "before x was x, x was y" can be used for it.

The pairs can also be used for other forms such as "x was y in the past" and so also allows the pairs to be used for other forms despite never hearing the pair being used in such a form.

0