Hot answers tagged

10

"Season after season" is a phrase meaning "over many seasons" or "repeatedly". If you substitute "repeatedly" for "season after season" in the sentence it should be easily understandable. Arsenal are interested in Inter Milan striker Mauro Icardi as they attempt to fill a much-needed spot up front after falling short repeatedly with their current crop ...


5

Sigh!! "Encouraged by" means that the presence or occurrence of something has injected courage into the encouraged person. "Encouraged with" means that some mechanism or action has injected said courage. Perhaps fittingly, the proverbial donkey is encouraged by a carrot and encouraged with a whip.


4

All of the current answers explain that "season after season" can be replaced by "after many [consecutive] seasons", but I wanted to add the origin of this construction. "[time word] after [time word]" is a very common English idiom, and it takes many forms: "Time after time" "Day after day" "Week after week" "Month after month" "Year after year" (as you ...


3

Season after season means the same as after many seasons. "after falling short season after season" The second "after" means that Arsenal was falling short after the season, after many seasons. "...they attempt to fill a much-needed spot up front after falling short after many seasons..."


2

The phrase may make more sense if "parsed" as follows: "Arsenal are interested in Inter Milan striker Mauro Icardi as they attempt to fill a much-needed spot up front after falling short (season after season) with their current crop of attackers." "Season after season" means "for many seasons." But it is basically a "parenthetical" to the main sentence. ...


2

My hypothesis is not supported by any list of linguistic references, but based on my own understanding of the English language. I apologise for the lack of academic rigour. In the more common uses of "To encourage someone with something" as in the examples given by commentators on this post, the encouragement is the use of an inducement or facilitation to ...


2

You wouldn't. The correct version is: Is there a loophole in some of these requirements? See the example sentences here, and here. The word loophole originally referred to a real hole. Hole occur in things, not to or for things. (Although in fairness it should be said that sometimes prepositions in English are pretty arbitrary.) Obviously there are ...


2

Reason, both in the singular and in the plural, is used in conjunction with both to and for, but in different ways: To is used when the complement of reason is a verbal phrase; the verb is in the infinitive. “There are several reasons to do it”, for example. For is used when the complement is a noun phrase. This includes verbal nouns and gerunds, both of ...


1

Both versions are possible. thesarus.com states in as a word that can replace among in the meaning of being in the middle of two points. In the example above, patients aged 50 can be described as being between two points. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/among


1

Both versions would be well understood, but "Take your hands out of your pockets" is idiomatic based on Ngram's corpus. Regarding plurality, if the hands were initially in a single pocket, use the singular, pocket. If they were in separate pockets, use the plural, pockets.


1

The distinctive property of particles is that they are the only complements which can freely come between the verb and its direct object. Particles are short words (one or two syllables) and virtually all of them are prepositions. But of course not all prepositions are particles! For example, "down" is a particle in She took down the suitcase, but "...


1

Forget everything you have read until now in the answers, and, forget google and Ingram. He said /with/ instead of /by/, most likely due to one of the principal features of spoken language versus written language. There are many lists re these features on the internet, most of them do not cover using one word instead of another when the speaker is actually ...


1

First the obvious: "Encouraged by" is the standard and markedly more common expression, and news outlets that standardized the expression probably did so accidentally, because "encouraged with" is comparatively uncommon. I would next note that "by" is active, while "with" is passive. "I am disgusted by the candidates" because they are actively disgusting ...


1

"encouraged" can be either an adjective or a past participle of the verb "encourage" used in a passive construction. One way to tell the difference is to notice whether "encouraged" is modified by "very", since "very" modifies adjectives but not verbs (nor participles of verbs, because those are still verbs). So "Ryan was encouraged" could either be a ...


1

Let's attempt to look at this another way. Instead of focusing on the "encouraged" part of the statement, let's look at all parts. "encouraged with--encouraged by": As you can see, the 'by' variant is the outright winner, but this doesn't tell the whole story. Now let's examine the latter part of Ryan's sentence, and you'll see that "with" is more ...


1

I assume this to be more of a process question than an English question. Most of the "fast headlines" are not actually written by the media outlets but by news agencies - like the associated press. The individual news outlets just take it from there. At least that's the case for most written news. TV stations just play the clip, their banners however are ...



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