New answers tagged

2

Depending on use and context, the preposition "of" sometimes fits better: "There are disadvantages to being born poor" v. "The disadvantages of being born poor are..." When you use "to" a person is implied. "There are disadvantages to [a person]...". However, if you choose to make explicit reference to the person, then the prepositions needed are "to" and "...


0

While I agree with the "subtlety" explanation there is also a not so "subtle" distinction. The first example states that the action occurred --- sort of a "in real-time' situation. The second example of usage is the way to state a condition (specific plan, situation, action, etc.) whether it has, is, or will occur. It is calling attention to the generic or ...


0

Some alternative examples I can think of: The doctor authorised (the) discharge of the patient. All clear for takeoff. The government ordered (the) lockdown of its embassy. All of the words in bold seem like they may have started life in this form as jargon specific to the sector they pertain to (they are all technical terms) but have made ...


-1

I have always thought of a gerund as encompassing a broader concept, more than a specific instance. M-W's definition therefore gives a hint: the (one or a very specific) act of (the broader or overall set of acts of) broadcasting. In this way, the title is, while not technically incorrect, awkward. I would have preferred "The judge decided to allow a or the ...


0

A sentence can sometimes be made to stand in the position of a noun phrase (NP) by nominalizing it. There are two nominalized sentences in your example: Instead of his being stationed on a plank, I want him on a pedestal. "his being stationed on a plank" is a POSS-ing nominalization of "He is stationed on a plank", and the nominalization is object of the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included