Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

33

Actually, this is an example of what's called "tmesis". It is the insertion of a word into another word. In "a whole nother" the "a" and the "-nother" go together and the "whole" is slotted between them. It is exactly the same process you get with the common, but more vulgar, "Abso-fucking-lutely" or "unbe-fucking-lievable". For a humorous take on the ...


6

Nother used here is just a folksy synonym for another, paired with a folksy saying; it's not necessarily ungrammatical, just very informal. Some people write it with the apostrophe, like 'nother, to indicate that they're explicitly contracting "another". You wouldn't want to replace it in your example of a whole nother kettle of fish, because that would ...


5

Ultimately, "a whole nother" is the reverse case of "an unwashed apron." Some English speakers treat "another" as a compressed version of "a nother" rather than of "an other," and the adjective "whole" simply slips in between the presumed article (a) and the presumed noun (nother). The opposite split is on display in the case of "an unwashed apron": napron ...


4

This is down to particular style. It is in essence an argument over whether or not to use the serial, or Oxford comma. If you are British, then most style guides would advise against its usage. If you are American, then most style guides would suggest you use it. So - funnily enough(!) - the answer is yes, no, or maybe.


3

It means that family is the most important thing for someone growing up. Although without context, I take "forming a human being" to mean them growing as a fetus; this context makes it so it talks about the child growing up. It's not so much the physical growth as the mental/emotional one that is stressed here.


3

To understand this expression you have to realise that the author is not being strictly literal in the sense of just the physical existence of a living human body. I believe that they are using the term "human being" as shorthand for "everything that goes to make up a person, their physical body, their personality, their outlook on life and the way they ...


3

I always took this usage to be purely humorous. Certainly I've only ever used it as such. It's definitely not a contraction of "a whole another" - no one would say that (I hope). It's simply taking "another" and putting "whole" in the middle as if it was originally "a nother kettle of fish", which of course we know it's not. The correct version is simply ...


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

In the 1950's and 60's in the county of Angus in Scotland where we had a farm with cattle, the singular of cattle; e.g. one far enough away for one not to know its sex; was called a 'cattle-beast'. That sounds a bit clumsy but is quite precise, in that it states that the animal being spoken of is bovine but sex is undetermined.


2

I don't think the object of comprises needs to be plural. Comprises can be translated to is comprised of; if something is made up of only one thing, like a care home, I think you can still say comprises. Consider this example: "His suggestion comprises the only real solution to the problem."


2

Both are grammatical, but the form with "the" is overwhelmingly more common in phrases of this sort. I find it hard to explain why. I think it's something to do with the fact that the "of" phrase limits it and makes it in a sense more definite. But I suspect it's just one of those oddities of English: we don't say "the history" but we do say "the history of ...


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 ...


1

The case of hopefully is a bit different here. It is a sentence adverb, a disjunct. It is modifying the whole sentence. Rather than in a hopeful manner, it means it is hoped in this case. Wikipedia Oxford's dictionary entry states this meaning and usage as valid, though it warns that some people think it is incorrect: Although this is the most ...


1

There are three styles of using "you and I" or "you and me". For each I will give two example sentences - the first with "you and I/me" as the subject and the second with "you and I/me" as the object. Style 1: You and me beat him. He hates you and me. This is normal English as learned by all children, found in most prose and dialogue in works of the ...


1

You are correct. "Conceal carry" is simple verbal laziness, along the lines of dropping the "g" in the "ing" suffix. It is also (for now) a purely verbal phenomenon ...


1

Simply because language does not work that way, and most of it is arbitrary. Forms fall into disuse and new borrowings enter the language all the time.


1

MT_Head's answer sounds right to me when it comes to southern US English, but in Indian English, the situation is a little different - "who all are" is the correct plurality for the verb. I don't think it's correct to categorize the Indian English version of "who all" as a pronoun. At minimum, there is no analogy to "you all", since that isn't a lexical ...



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