Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

There's actually a bit of a problem here - the sentence, as provided, without context or a follow-up, is indeed ambiguous. I'll illustrate first: They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't. This is how you resolved the sentence, with the meaning that the person built the home but had help - but this isn't the only ...


5

The answer is rather complex. There are some rules that regulate the position of an adverb of frequency, such as: sometimes, often, occasionally, always etc. subject aux/be adverb main verb object/place/time I *often* go swimming in the evenings. He doesn't *always* play tennis. We are *usually* ...


5

As far as I'm concerned, there's no "correct" way here... Both of those, plus - what I would argue as the most popular option - "Sometimes I can" are all OK in my book. I can sometimes see the future but it's not working today. I sometimes can eat an entire pizza alone. Sometimes I can spell complicated words without needing the spellchecker! ...


4

I'm sure this is elsewhere, but in another form. It certainly bears repeating though. You can (almost always) figure out which pronoun to use by removing the rest of the people from the list. This includes me. Obviously, if there is another part of the sentence, don't forget that the pronoun can be affected. "Myself" is reflexive, and so normally ...


3

In British usage, there are very few titles which are used with the first name alone: only some honorifics such as "Sir", "Lord" and "Prince". Academic, professional and occupational titles (such as "Dr", "Professor", "Constable") are always used with surname, or with both name. I have a friend who we know as "Dr Tim", but this is a sort of friendly joke, ...


3

By itself, that statement is ambiguous; there is no way to tell whether it is Brahma or Indra that has made the mistake. You can add some context around it to make clear whose mistake it was: Brahma saw that Indra had made a mistake. Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he had committed. (Clearly here Indra made the mistake.) Brahma examined ...


3

Here , "Wishing you a day as lovely as you" looks like a short way of saying "[I am] wishing you a day [which is] as lovely as you [are]" If we are okay with leaving out the first two parts "[I am]" & "[which is]", then we might also be okay with leaving out the last part "[are]". It may not be great literature as such, but it will look fine in ...


2

The original is probably eliding a word. I think this works: You are she whom I love. 'are' is a linking verb here; 'whom' is introducing an appositive phrase and is the object of 'love'. What's missing in the original is the predicate pronoun ('she', 'he', etc.).


2

To me, the sentences are similar enough in meaning that they could be interchangeable. The meaning I glean from them is that "since then, I have" practiced almost exclusively in "this work." That being said, the second sentence may be slightly ambiguous. It could mean "I have been developing my specialty in this work since then." In other words, the ...


2

It is my understanding that this non-meaning 'do' is actually a remnant of old Welsh and Gaelic; and that in fact these two languages are virtually the only other languages other than English that utilize this bizarre phrasing. It actually stemmed from using the word 'do' to indicate the predicate of any sentence. The 'do' signified that the word following ...


2

An example that is easy to deal with: "most noblest". The most noble of a group of people who are considered noble is the noblest. There is a progession of nobility from noble to nobler to noblest, just as there is a progression from big to bigger to biggest. "Most" is implied in the term noblest, so "most noble" or "noblest" will work, but not "most ...


2

They both are. Finished is an adjective in the first sentence. [not before noun] no longer doing something or dealing with somebody/something It is a verb in the second. The first sentence is the more idiomatic one.


2

The sentence is grammatically correct. By using the definite article the operation, I assume it was a very specific operation which the listener will already know about. Otherwise the indefinite article would normally be used. And in Britain although we talk about a patient being in hospital, visitors usually go to the hospital. Saying you are going to ...


2

When shortened forms become idiomatic, it may be better not to try to identify parts of speech within them. I had more cups of tea than Harry [had] [cups of tea]. No problem with classifying Harry as a noun (phrase) (though 'they did' reduces to 'them' nowadays). ... I had more cups of tea than [I] [had] [cups of] coffee. Again, no problems. ...


2

It depends what point you are trying to convey. If you are trying to express your frustration with school (and want to say that you're sick of it) then you would say I'm finished with school! or I'm done with school! So, yes, in this case you would have to use "with". If you want to say that you have finished school (i.e. completed Year 12 or been dismissed ...


2

If you say that someone "sleeps outdoors," the most common inference would be that they are homeless - or perhaps they can't abide the air-conditioning. It usually brings to mind a picture of someone in a setting where there are indoor places to sleep. (A city, or a residential neighborhood.) If you say "sleeps in the outdoors, one assumes that there is a ...


2

Short answer: It is. The OED does have it as a (regional and nonstandard) form since the 1800's, and the earliest citation is 1748 G. G. Beekman Let. 7 June in Beekman Mercantile Papers (1956) I. 47: I have Earnt allmost so much as the amount of the bill. However it is not, and has never been, in popular written use. Using Google Ngram to query the ...


2

"Nor" can indeed appear in a sentence without "neither". One of the accepted conventions of its such usage is listing of two negations in one sentence and starting the second one with "nor", with a comma before it. Your second example is perfectly OK. Go ahead with it.


2

Both are OK (Edit: once corrected as Fumblefingers suggests in a comment to this reply), though for me they are a little literary, which clashes with the colloquial word 'cash'. I'm not sure if this was just a typo, but I would count your "traditional" sentence as ungrammatical: clause-initial "neither" (like "never" and "so") requires inversion. So ...


2

This is definition #5 of for in ODO Having (the thing mentioned) as a reason or cause: Aileen is proud of her family for their support Getting directions is the reason to read the instructions.


2

Both are correct. myself can be used in place of me or I in similar (informal) contexts - especially in compound subjects, objects and complements. Alain and myself (I) got it right. They requested Alain and myself (me) to watch for intruders. This includes my friend, my brother and myself (me) - A little pointer here: for the sake of politeness, we ...


1

You have pride in your country, or you are proud of your country. You can have love for your country as well as a great love of it. Don't mix them up.


1

"I" is a subject pronoun and "me" is an object pronoun. So, the correct usage would be the second option: "Summer was a magical time for Jamie and me".


1

If i say . "I have been working there since 2011?" I think above mentioned line means that I have been continuously working ... no break or I had not came home. The sentence: "I have been working with XY for 4 years/ since 2011" is perfectly alright and doesn't imply you never went home


1

The expression "Where at?" is used when the location is not hinted at by the prompting statement. Ex: "There's going to be a big party tonight." "Where at?" "I saw your crazy ex-wife yesterday." "Where at?" Note that a simple "Where?" would work in these instances.


1

Here's an excerpt from an article on Tone and Mood words You might think about the difference between mood and tone as follows: Mood as the attitude of the author toward the subject, and Tone as the attitude of the author toward the audience. Usually. Sometimes there is a fine line, and Tone can be an attitude toward the implied audience and ...


1

"Sometimes" is bad toward the middle: sometimes the fish must have been being eaten for hours the fish sometimes must have been being eaten for hours the fish must sometimes have been being eaten for hours the fish must have sometimes been being eaten for hours *the fish must have been sometimes being eaten for hours *the fish must have been ...


1

They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't. They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't build my dream home by myself. They were wrongheaded to warn (or predict) that I would be unable to build the dream house on my own because it was never my intention to act alone. The ...


1

They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, (the thing is,) I didn't (try to do it, I had help). He's saying they were wrong to assume I was trying to build it by myself. EDIT: The conjunction AND, unlike BUT, doesn't always provide contrast. Therefore, you might be right in saying that using and is ambiguous here. It could ...


1

No, "what" should never appear in these constructions. But you could use "that". 1) All that I've done is sleep. 2) After all that I've done, I still fail to ... However, it's also fine without.



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