Hot answers tagged

7

"Spread" and "get" are infinitives, so not in the present tense, and they should stay that way => to help + inf. Your sentence can indeed be read that way: "who helped spread the word and helped get people to..."


3

They are both grammatical, but they mean different things. And there are other differences. Anything but X is an idiom, and but in this idiom is a negative. So, anything but professional means 'definitely not professional'. If you add another negative in the X element, the usual double negative confusion results anything but not professional means ...


3

Should I say "negative oneth index" or "negative first index"? You should say neither. Which one is grammatically correct? Neither is correct usage. They're probably grammatically correct in the way that "very unique milk" is gramatically correct even though it is so wrong in so many ways. Is there a way to avoid this problem altogether. ...


3

You could indeed replace would with I wish in this sentence, as in would that it were. Another odd thing about this sentence is the (probably poetic) inversion of I had heard and of this journey. This kind of inversion can be used when the author wants to begin the clause with the topic of the sentence, because the topic can be emphasised as such by placing ...


3

One of the meanings of ill is simply the antonym of well. In this case the word does apply in your example. An injured person isn't well. You are right however, in that it is more common for ill to refer to an illness. The BBC does frequently in its reports state "One woman is in a critical condition...". This is often a direct quote from a hospital ...


3

It should be her, because it is the object of the preposition of. Her is not part of the relative clause: the relative clause only includes who and what follows. The role of who in the relative clause (subject) has no bearing on anything outside the relative clause. Antecedent (her) and relative pronoun (who) must normally agree in number, but their ...


3

In this example, away means go away. The verb go is suppressed. It is an archaism, the sort of thing that Tolkien was fond of. It is rare in modern texts, but has been around for hundreds of years. Here are some examples from the New English Dictionary: 1375 Otherwais mych thai noch avay. 1393 Whither awaie with my hens, foxe? 1594 I will away to ...


2

Macmillan defines it as not healthy, because of a medical condition or an injury (emphasis added) Other online dictionaries talk about poor health, not precluding injury as a cause. Also, the term terminally ill seems to be used for patients near death, regardless of the cause. [The above relates to AmE. Can't speak for BrE]


2

These are two different uses of the past perfect tense, and the conditions that apply to one use don't apply to the other use. There is nothing wrong with If Mary had studied English after she moved to New York, she would have passed the exam, and to me it sounds better than either of your alternatives.


2

To be "in deep" can be understood as: inextricably involved in or committed to a situation. "He knew that he was in deep when his things began to proliferate in her apartment" Your sentence looks like a variation on it. Sometimes, a "strong" or negative word is omitted in spoken sentences, which in this situation could have been depression, as ...


2

It doesn't much matter if you use who or that. But there are several other mistakes in your sentence, so for the benefit of space I post this as an answer. The main problem with your sentence (which is a question and deserves a question mark) is that consider to become member does not make sense. You can be considering membership of the EBU, or ...


2

If you go to the jungles in Africa, you would see a lot of animals. Despite the two dogmatic answers, and similar comments, (as of my writing) that state that this sentence is incorrect, I'm loath to force English speakers to speak according to paradigms found in textbooks. Yes, it is an observable fact that the way native speakers signal an ...


2

Get and got both work here but require the sentence to be parsed differently. What your copy-writer apparently intended was for the sentence to be parsed like this: Our small initiative turned into a sizeable movement with the support of influencers, who helped(a) spread the wordand [helped](b) get people to make a pledge by greenifying their Facebook ...


2

Sentence like “... are already described in section XYZ” are certainly not wrong, and, as already has been said, are not past tense. Although there is nothing wrong either with “... have already been described in section XYZ”, which is in a past tense. Indeed, the past tense indicates that the description you mention precedes the current page in your thesis, ...


2

It's possible to distinguish, though usually the two interpretations are the same, in effect. The post-nominal modifier, "kid crying", refers to a temporary or accidental characteristic, but the pre-nominal modifier, "crying kid", refers to a permanent or essential quality. If the kid differs from other kids in crying a lot of the time, then even at a time ...


2

The sentence is complicated. I think maybe the best thing to do is re-word the sentence in a way that might be easier to understand. Jonas and Gabriel saw deer; and once, beside the road, looking at them curious and unafraid, a small reddish-brown creature with a thick tail, whose name Jonas did not know. Jonas and Gabriel saw deer. Another ...


2

"In the club I am responsible for checking people's ID". Or, "In the club I am responsible for checking IDs". It's only people that have an ID in this context, so if you say "IDs" (note the plural, which has moved from "people" to "ID", since we don't have "people" in the sentence any more), its obvious what kind of ID you're talking about. EDIT, re ...


1

The word which is used in relative clauses: That's the car which I bought yesterday. Notice that the relative clause which I bought yesterday is giving us more information about the car in question. So we have a noun car, which is being postmodified by a relative clause. We say that the noun car is the ANTECEDENT for the relative clause. The relative ...


1

Since the sentence is in past tense, shouldn't "get" be "got"? The word "got" is indeed the simple past tense of "to get", but you need to analyze the sentence a bit more deeply. How is "get" used there? In fact, it is the bare infinitive, as @MorganFR observed. Infinitives function as nouns, and do not change tense. The verb in the sentence is ...


1

Ask is a transitive verb: it takes a Direct Object (DO), in its simplest form a noun phrase: Anne asked me [DO a question]. If we want to represent Anne's exact words, we use the question she actually asked, followed by a question mark and enclosed in quotes, in that DO position: Anne asked me "Who is your favorite actor?" The quotes mark this ...


1

Affirmative: that man was Negative: that man wasn't Interrogative: Was that man...? Affirmative statement: Tell me who that man was. Interrogative: (only 1 interrogative form at the beginning) Can you tell me who that man was? Interrogative: Who was that man? Affirmative: Anne asked me who my favourite actor was. (There's no question mark.) Question ...


1

It's difficult to be definitive without the context you have in mind. But generally, comparison across implies that some ordering to the groups in question. For example, take the article "Stroke Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Comparison across Age Groups" in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Volume 42, Issue 1, pages 39–44, January 1994, which ...


1

I think that Ramiro is anything but professional is the correct way. It is not really a question of grammar but rather of an expression of how we say it. Ramiro is anything but not professional---when I hear that I understand what you want to say, but it is not as clear.


1

If you want to say that a sequence {A, B, C} occur in order, you use the same tense. So if the sequence is {shock, kill, enter} then all three should be present tense. However, if one of the items happened at another time, you can introduce new tenses. So if you want to express this sequence of events; Jack loses the ring Jane talks to Jack Jack tells ...


1

Morphology is the study of the structure of words, in particular the analysis of their parts with respect to meaning. For instance in the sentence One dog is a pet; many dogs are a pack the fact that the plural of dog is formed by added a final -s is a morphological consideration. Syntax is the study of the structure of sentences, i.e., the rules ...


1

You are quoting the name of the measurement or category, 'hardening mechanism'. It doesn't need to change. Not a grammarian's answer, but consider that if you wrote it as "Hardening timescales are plotted against separation in Fig.2, each broken down by its hardening mechanism." It's clear that this should not be pluralised.


1

We couldn't tell if [what he was doing was singing or making some other kind of noise]. No, you can’t omit "what". This is called a 'fused' relative construction where the antecedent and the relative word are fused together rather than being expressed separately as in simpler constructions. The bracketed expression is thus a noun phrase whose head is fused ...


1

In this example you cannot remove the "what" because the entire phrase "what he was doing" acts as a noun phrase in the sentence. Removing any one of the four words changes the meaning of the sentence or makes it non-sensical. You can, however, change it to: "We couldn't tell if he was singing..." A parallel example to reinforce this point might be ...


1

It is minus-oneth index. See "oneth" on Wiktionary en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oneth (archaic, nonstandard) 'first', or other ordinal derivatives of 'one', such as hundred-and-oneth or minus-oneth Usage: Talk:Standard enthalpy of formation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Perhaps the following thoughts may be useful. They concern the ...


1

Globalization causes [international goods to be available in different countries], [better cultural change], and [international trade to be more efficient]. It looks grammatically okay to me. There are three coordinates (bracketed); the second one is a straightforward NP as object of "causes". The other two coordinates are a bit tricky since in each one ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible