Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

The problem some people have is with the lack of the word "other". The argument goes likes this: If you are talking about Egypt as a country today and you want to compare it to the religious beliefs of ancient civilizations, you would say "than any ancient civilization" - because Egypt in this sentance is not an ancient civilization. And if you want to say ...


10

It means I am not embarrassed to say that I do not understand (or know the meaning of X). In the example given, the Candidate is saying that she or he cannot answer the question until the questioner defines the term. This could be sincere, or it could be a hedge to avoid answering the question (or a setup to quibble about an uncomfortable answer).


8

I suspect it should be "any other ancient civilization".


5

Better off implies that something would be more beneficial to the subject, whereas would rather has a connotation of personal preference. For example, one could say: "I would rather skip my chores and watch a movie, but I'd be better off if I did them right now."


4

Such data structures don't allow insertion of any kind of objects. Such data structures don't allow us to insert any kind of objects. Such data structures don't allow inserting any kind of objects.


4

She's not running for class president because she is scared Punctuation alone will not make your second sentence (quoted above) clear and unambiguous. If you want to say that she's running, but not because she's scared (implying another reason), better to relocate not She's running for class president, but not because she's scared.


4

The second translation is incorrect, and would not be considered as an option by a native speaker. You should probably mistrust whatever source you found it in. In general, "need" is sometimes used when "want" is probably more accurate --it's a stronger word, and expresses that what is being spoken about is not just a desire but a necessity (whether or not ...


4

'Lying supine' is just another example of the type of redundant description that is so common in English, like 'hollow tube', 'period of time', 'free gift', 'frozen ice' etc. If you're interested in reading more examples, you'll find an extensive list of them here.


3

They're all perfectly good, and in some contexts, two or even all three of them will fit: it all depends on the spatial (or sometimes notional) arrangement of the situation. Come over means "come from somewhere else to here". Sometimes it is literal: from the other side of the road, or of a fence. But sometimes it is more abstract, meaning something like ...


3

expressionless is modifing she, not stands, so it should be an adjective, not an adverb. It's equivalent to She's standing there and is completely expressionless. An example where you could use an adverb is: She's standing there completely effortlessly. The use of the adverb completely is irrelevant. An adverb can modify either an adjective or ...


3

Given that Let's is a contraction of Let us, if you want to be redundant and expand upon just who the (contracted) "us" consists of, then since "us" is the objective case, the people included in "us" should also be mentioned with the objective case: you and me. Without the contraction, does "Let I be fair with you" or "Let we indulge in a little bit of ...


3

Yes, it's grammatical. No, it is not in good style. No, you cannot be assured that everyone will process it correctly. Just because something is grammatical doesn't mean everyone will process it well: I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. The best way to say their clunky ...


2

Adverbs ordinarily precede the adjectives or adverbs they modify, so that is why in your examples "completely" precedes the adjective "expressionless" or the adverb "expressionlessly", which it modifies. "Completely" can also modify a verb, in which case it can precede the verb it modifies: "They completely missed my point." However, it can also follow the ...


2

Using 'them' makes 'fears' the garnish for meals. Presumably the intended meaning. Using 'it' makes the bottle itself the garnish (surely not). It also contadicts the clearly uncountable popcorn ('some').


2

The first sentence is grammatically correct, although redundant. I'd either say He used to be our class representative. or There was a time when he was our class representative. Both unambiguously imply that he is no longer our class representative. The second sentence is marginally grammatically correct, but its meaning is rather strange: ...


2

The subject of the sentence is "the subjective nature (of these tests)". Therefore "rely" is inflected in agreement with "nature", which is singular. Thus the only correct one is The subjective nature of these tests relies on human expertise to assess the patient correctly


2

On the one hand, the standard two-person equivalent of "us" (as in "let us," which in contracted form yields "let's"), when the two people involved are the speaker and the person spoken to, is "you and me"; whereas the standard equivalent of "we" under the same conditions is "you and I," This would lead to the usual choice of "you and me" in the two examples ...


2

Since Kate purportedly created it, why not a bucket list by Kate? If someone is imposing this do-before-die obligation, perhaps a bucket list for Kate?


2

The question is odd: all three answers are acceptable. If I had to pick one, I'd say b), because it directly answers the question. a) implies a level of visitors that means 'often' (which is not stated) ie. why should 'every day' be 'often'? Technically, c) is not an answer, nor is it a sentence.


1

The first sentence reads okay to me; I would not use the second sentence. But I would suggest this rewording: We had a very small marriage ceremony to which only close relatives and friends were invited. Or better yet, to avoid switching to the passive voice: We had a very small marriage ceremony to which we invited only close relatives and friends.


1

The "invincible" would be a general reference to anyone deemed invincible. The "invincible seven" would mean seven particular persons or entities who are described as invincible. The "invincibles" would be the appropriate proper name of a group, presumably of people, who wish to project themselves as being invincible. The "undateable" is a general ...


1

It has to be "to not allow". In other circumstances, "not to allow" is possible, however it would have to be part of a contrastive "not to do that ... but rather to do this" construction. As in "We come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him." If splitting an infinitive makes you nervous, you could paraphrase: "We create these events to prevent the news ...


1

"Was not" is more formal but "wasn't" is acceptable in most spoken registers and many written. I wouldn't use the contraction in scientific writing (the only real formal sort I do). In news or business letters it would be a matter of how formal you were trying to sound. Sometimes the uncontracted form can sound official or even officious. You may or may not ...


1

Since you are communicating a NEGATIVE idea, you should include a negative form, thus - NEITHER would be a better and the most correct form in many cases.


1

"Of or" is not a constituent. "Or" is a conjunction which connects the preposition "of" and the preposition "pertaining to" to make the conjoined preposition "of or pertaining to", which then combines with the noun phrase "important records or archives", which is the object of this preposition. (The latter noun phrase is formed in a corresponding way by ...


1

You can either use between 50 and 100 thousand or (from) 50 to 100 thousand (without between). Because you're using dropped to, it might be preferable to avoid the initial from and just say dropped to 50 to 100 thousand instead of the more clumsy dropped to from 50 to 100 thousand. 50 to 100000 could literally mean anything between the two-digit ...


1

So we can tell whether there is more than one sheep eating when someone says "The sheep are eating".


1

I'm guessing that you intended to say that the characters are _briefly _ introduced. "Shortly", even though it can be used in idioms like "I'll be with you shortly", would not be appropriate in this place.


1

Yes, Japanese /ˌʤæpəˈniːz/ noun the Japanese : the people of Japan : Japanese people Verb usage example: She is Japanese but Japanese people are... Example of an Adj. use- “the Japanese Emperor”, “Japanese cars”


1

"At the beginning" and "in the beginning" both sound fine to me. But I'm unclear what "shortly" is doing there. Normally, it's used like this: "I'll be with you shortly", meaning I'll be with you after a short interval". So your sentence is saying "In the beginning the characters are introduced after a short interval", which just feels wrong. You've said ...



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