Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

19

In my view it certainly isn't. The first sentence doesn't make sense because, as you point out, it uses 'either' without 'or'. In order to make the whole piece grammatical the writer simply needs to leave out the 'either' (except they may have too many 'constructed/constructings').


9

These sentences make me cringe. I agree that "either" needs to be taken out to help it make some sense, otherwise the reader will just keep going through all of the awful comma splices trying to find the second part of that thought. Usually Wikipedia has decent grammar. Just always keep in mind that all of the information on there is added by random ...


6

Those sentences are so long, and so bursting with technical description, that the most sensible way of handling this much material is to break it all up into more manageable (and more comprehensible) segments. If I were to rewrite the text you quoted, I would start off by explicitly stating that I was about to propose two different solutions -- perhaps with ...


3

I agree with the other answers, and will go further to say that it is incorrect to leave an "either" in that context without addressing an alternative in the same sentence. It seems to me like the person meant to write an either/or sentence, and then got so carried away cramming that many words into it that he forgot the "or." Then, being lazy, he tacked ...


2

Here is a discussion from Language Log on the use of "there's" with a plural subject. On the basis of Google statistics, the author concludes that: The contraction there's is used with a plural subject in informal contexts (such as blogs) by people who would never say "There is [several]". In effect There's with a plural noun has become informal ...


2

OED definition 21 B I 1c under short says... for short: as an abbreviation. Their first citation is 1845, but it's perhaps worth pointing out that two out of their three citations have the idiomatic term in 'scare quotes'. So although OED don't actually say it's informal, colloquial, I think it's fair to assume it's in that general area. As per these ...


2

You could, but you probably should not. There's certainly a meaning of the word so that matches perfectly. But is it the meaning that immediately and clearly comes to mind? I don't think so, and I strongly suspect that this is not just my reading of it, but would be common to other readers too. As such, you could argue that your use was correct, but what's ...


1

There are actually two clauses conjoined in v.5; the second is reduced by ellipsis and supplemented by an appositive NP bound to mediator; v.6 begins with a further supplementation, a relative clause modifying the appositive. The second half of v.6 is an infinitive adjunct, but it is not clear what precisely it modifies; my reading would be that it modifies ...


1

The subjunctive mode (or mood) requires the word send, because there is an "ought-ness" in Mr. Hawkins' request. When something is required of you (assuming you are the "someone" in your first question) or you are given a directive (or order, or command) by someone, the use of the subjunctive mode is appropriate. There seems to be a movement today toward ...


1

You haven't explained why you have doubts regarding the general acceptability of the expression, but as a native speaker I can confidently inform you that no cloud of latent or overt disapproval hangs over it as far as most speakers of English are concerned. In addition, the possible alternatives I can think of for your query sentence are all much more ...


1

It is a widely accepted phrase, therefore it is by definition correct, even if it seems formally questionable. It isn't considered slang, it's just an expression that has become standardized. (And, paradoxically, is sometimes used even if the nickname is longer than the person's actual name.) Alternatives: replacing "for short" with "as a nickname" (which ...


1

CAVEAT/DISCLAIMER: THE ANSWERER TO THIS QUESTION CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, IF ANY, OF THE OP WHO ACTS UPON AND/OR HOLDS THE ANSWERER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. THE ANSWER IS MEANT TO ELUCIDATE A QUESTION REGARDING SYNTAX, VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR, AND PUNCTUATION. IT IS NEITHER TO BE CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY AS LEGAL ADVICE, NOR ...


1

Grace says, "Let me watch America's Next Top Model. It's an activity," and Mrs. Lancaster says "Television is a passivity." She is parallelling Grace's comment in a direct retort, simply replacing activ(e) with passiv(e). The fact that "passivity" happens to be an actual word doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter. By my interpretation, Mrs. ...


1

Yes, it should be "there're". I suspect that speech has a role in the tendency to substitute "there's" for "there're" because the contraction "there're" is nearly impossible to pronounce clearly. I've hear people use the both contraction "there's" in speech in one instance, and a few moments later, while referring to the same event, use "there are" if full ...


1

In line with the commenters above, I find your sentence grammatical but a little awkward (for the same reason you do). I'd suggest either of these two variants, both of which place the verb 'are' somewhat closer to the subject of the sentence: I wonder what the plans are for the next steps regarding the topic we discussed yesterday. I wonder what ...


1

"This facility has a new administrator" is the correct one. Facility is an 'it', so it follows the verb form that is applied to he, she, and it. If it was a plural, I, you, or they, it would be "They/I/You have a new administrator".



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