Recently Approved Transactions or the RAT?
It’s just a record of a transaction, nothing more complex than that. The authority to disseminate funds lies purely with the mint.
Exactly! It’s an ex-DBC, gone to meet its maker, etc.
4 Likes
A DBC with a Norwegian Blue watermark 
3 Likes
Glued on its perch the poor wee thing.
1 Like
In this case, I believe “spenD” denotes the atemporal infinitive, not the present tense, or the past tense, like “spenT” would. So I admit to being partial to “spenDbook”.
But seriously, the important thing is that it’s consistent. It could be “spenXbook”, as long as it’s the same everywhere.
The above statements are not true, strictly speaking, but the explanation is beyond the scope of this post.
5 Likes
I’ve never heard of atemporal infinitives. You are the fount of all linguistics knowledge @Sascha. Respect. But don’t you think the important thing (apart from consistency, which I agree with) is that it’s in the past, spent, immutable, deceased … It’s not really a book either - but let’s not go there!
5 Likes
Well. We are getting pretty deep into linguistic theory here. Right now I can’t think of a temporal infinitive in any language. However, infinitives can have aspect, e.g. in Russian. The perfective aspect infinitive (most naturally) denotes something that has finished happening in the past, whereas the imperfective aspect infinitive denotes something that’s ongoing, be it in the past or in the present. But that doesn’t mean the infinitive is “past” or has tense at all. The point is that aspect (or aspectuality) and tense are different animals.
EDIT: My understanding is that Bulgarian has a very rich morphology of both tense and aspect. Tense is less important in Russian. Ping @Dimitar.
6 Likes
Your chickens must be very well versed.
6 Likes
I do understand some “chicken”, and I can even speak a tiny bit, despite my vocal cords being what they are. But chickens are practical beings who don’t care much for theory.
7 Likes
Is the above actually correct English? I have the feeling one has to be “well versed” in something, and that something is missing above. (Do tell me if you want me to stop.) 
3 Likes
@Sascha it’s time to feed the chickens
1 Like
It’s time for me to go to bed is what it is.
You got it - it IS incorrect
You’re on a roll tonight, Sascha.
Why do I fancy an egg on a roll with brown sauce now? All this chicken talk.
1 Like
I seen me some city slicker ladies tonight. Odd creatures, but they sure look mighty tasty.
chicken-licking good?
1 Like
Absent something one must assume everything. Whichever way you slice it those must be some chickens. Not your everyday cackling I’ll bet.
2 Likes
You must teach me. We must be treating them alright though because the three hens we inherited follow us everywhere, bow to us, and love to visit. I actually think they are much more fun and friendly than our ducks.
3 Likes
Now I’ve had a few hours of sleep, and I’ve changed my mind. I’ve never actually studied English per se, and the question of English word class is a difficult one. It has no obvious answers without going beyond the properties of one word form and into syntax, rather than simple morphology. But this might be a better analysis.
“Spend-book” is actually a compound of the base forms of two nouns, not a noun and the infinitive form of a verb. A “swimsuit” is something one might wear when going for “a swim”. A “spend-book” is something to which one writes when one has made “a spend”.
The above means “spent-book” could even be considered “wrong”. One hardly makes “a spent”. I guess even a “swam-suit” could be possible, meaning a suit one wears after swimming, but it is more far-fetched.
Infinitives are noun-like, just like participles are adjective-like, and the differences are not always clear.
Analyses like these are far beyond what I call “school teacher grammar”. They are also only really meaningful in certain contexts of e.g. language technology or computational linguistics.
This thread has always been a bit funny, and not necessarily on topic, so I’m allowing myself such speculation. Please just ignore it, if you think it’s junk. I’m really just having a bit of fun here. Maybe I’ll sleep some more, and come up with a further “refactored” theory later.
6 Likes
I’m really intimidated by this conversation…but nevertheless, I will mention the fact that in Italian this would be called ‘libro spese’, and someone with italian background could be inclined to interpret spentbook as ‘a book that has been spent’… :canofworms
3 Likes
If you are analysing it this way then it is technically holding the record of the DBCs that have been spent. It is not spending the DBC, it is the DBC that one spends. The book records the record of each DBC that has been spent. One goes on a trip, the diary is when one has gone on the trip. One spends the DBC and the book records that the DBC has been spent.
And yes it is still possible to see it your way, its more of what one was taught in English.
1 Like