Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

21

1.) He died a broken man. 2.) He died as a broken man. * Both are fine, are grammatical, and are standard English usage. In your two examples, the expressions "a broken man" are predicative and are functioning as predicative complements (PC). Here are some related examples: CGEL, page 261, [25]: He died young. The "young" in that example ...


14

The reason it's not a verb is as Robusto says. The reason you're confused is because you're using "Verb" in two senses. Robusto's answer deals with the correct use of the technical term "Verb", which is syntactic. You, on the other hand, appear to be using "Verb" to mean "Predicate", which is logical. The distinction is a vital one. Syntax is ...


13

It's not mathematically or grammatically correct - but its meaning is clear enough. "Save up to 50%!" or "Savings of up to 50%!" would be correct. Unless they are trying some subtle legal trick of actually reducing the discount from 50% to 25% and claiming that they are telling the truth and that halving the saving is "saving 50% off".


12

I'm going to disagree slightly with the other answers: I believe "Chinese writer" refers exclusively to the nationality of the writer (your option 2). The rest we assume from context, i.e. from what we know about the world. Think about it: do you know whether Mo Yan writes in Cantonese or Mandarin? Or what about if the headline mentioned "Swiss writer Juste ...


10

Neither form is free of sin; a more-proper form is: If you would like a receipt, please tell cashier. Here is a scenario suggested by the second sign, which says, "Please ask cashier if you would like a receipt": Customer: Would I like a receipt? Cashier: Let me consult my crystal ball.


10

The first sentence, "He is not obviously guilty", is saying that the fact that he is guilty is not obvious. In this case, "obviously" is an adjective modifying "guilty". "Not" negates the phrase "obviously guilty". The second sentence, "He is obviously not guilty", is saying that it is obvious that he is not guilty. In this case, the "not" is only negating ...


8

The phrase 'as remained' does not belong with 'of orthodox meanings', it belongs with 'stripping such words'. It helps to take the sentence apart: This was done .... chiefly by eliminating undesirable words... This was achieved by removing unwanted words... ... and by stripping [such words as remained] of orthodox meanings, and so far as possible ...


8

It's fine, but omit the second comma. Where you have consecutive adjectives like this, the comma is used in place of and. You could write first generation and working class engineering student, but you wouldn’t normally write first generation and working class and engineering student. A comma after both first generation and working class would suggest ...


7

The second sentence is incorrect. As you point out, "taken aback" means of a person that s/he has been surprised. It might be correct to say something like: In this work of Pankaj Mishra, we are taken aback when we learn that in 18th century Europe, cows could fly. But it would probably be more natural, even there, to use the verb "surprised."


7

Grammatically, though is not the "right option" for the sentence because though is commonly used in a subordinate clause (Though I am hungry, I will not stop for lunch), in a participial phrase (Though bored beyond belief, Jonah continued reading), or as an adverb (Yeah, it was an impressive movie. A bit long, though). A writer might take liberties and use ...


7

My niece says to me, 'Why does the sun shine?' My niece asks me why the sun shines. In the former sentence, I am quoting the direct speech of my niece. And that speech is a question. So, that's ending in a question mark and the helping verb (does) there is preceded by the subject (the sun). The 2nd sentence, whereas, is the indirect speech of my ...


6

To your first question, the answer is 4: probably both. You're right, the modifier Chinese is ambiguous, but only in terms of what language the author uses. (Note that ambiguity in headlines is not necessarily something to reject. Eradication of ambiguity often requires the sacrifice of attention, and attention-grabbing is paramount in a headline.) In my ...


6

Yes, the second half of the phrase is missing, but that doesn't inherently make it bad grammar - that just makes it an ellipsis. Do not be the person we ask to leave the auditorium, because we will (ask you to leave if we have to)! I think 'because' is a slightly awkward conjunction in that sentence, which is probably why it sounds a little off. But I ...


6

It's an example of subject-verb inversion. Specifically, it's quotative inversion. It is not used much in normal speech, which is a reason to avoid it sometimes. It is often used in literary uses, by which I don't mean literary with its nuance of "high art" but merely that it is used in stories, poetry and non-fiction narrative. It's most often used after ...


6

To is a particle which often precedes the plain form of the verb when it is functioning as an infinitive. It can no more be omitted before the verb foreground in this sentence than it can be omitted before take. If you think the sentence is presumptuous, then that is up to you. It is not a matter of grammar.


5

I don't think this is an example of a mixed construction sentence. It is grammatically correct and is understandable. See this link for some examples of mixed construction sentences. It is, however, unnecessarily wordy. You didn't ask for this, but I would reword it something like: After the poem was published, his name began appearing on such lists often ...


5

You could always break it up into separate sentences (if it's important enough to leave parentheses): It's widely known that the name "JavaScript" is trademarked by Oracle. The name was formerly a trademark of Sun (and before that a trademark of Netscape). If you don't like that, you might try putting it into a chronological list: It's widely known ...


5

A good working rule is that such a description applies to the immediately preceding noun, unless there are clear indications to the contrary. Whether there are clear indications to the contrary will depend on the entire context, but there are no such indications in the limited context of your example. This is less a matter of grammar than of knowledge of the ...


5

It's seldom unacceptable to say or write anything that clarifies meaning. The features you describe are known as tails, and are normally found only in speech. ‘They occur at the end of clauses, normally echoing an antecedent pronoun and help to reinforce what we are saying’ (Carter, R. 'Grammar and Spoken English’ in Applying English Grammar). The tail in ...


5

I would say "3 1/2 -- probably but not necessarily both" :) "Chinese writer/author" pretty strongly implies "Chinese national" to me. It seems natural that one would specify the nationality of the winner of an international award. Especially since at least one of the articles stresses the committee's trend of picking Europeans. It stands to reason that a ...


5

There's definitely room for criticism, though also for justification. The sentence has two clauses. The first is straight forward, and could stand as an independent clause. Indeed, as an independent statement: Do not be the person we ask to leave the auditorium The second only makes sense in the context of that previous clause: we will. On it's ...


5

No. As usual, this sentence has been done many things to, and needs to be unwound. There's one main clause, in skeleton form The issue was debated and also a subordinate gerund clause that's the object of an adverbial preposition with (with) children coming to our schools speaking more than 200 languages which itself contains yet another adverbial ...


5

No, it is not the right option, and while some sentences may begin with though, your "sentence" is not a sentence! It would be a sentence if it were worded as follows (it includes corrected spelling in brackets): "Though she spent most of her time [sitting on] the wooden steps that led to the beach, gazing vacantly at the blue ocean, she gradually came ...


5

In ‘The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language’, David Crystal distinguishes between major sentences and minor sentences, as follows: ‘[A major sentence] is a type of sentence which is highly productive, such as those with a subject plus predicate structure; contrasts with minor sentences, where there is limited productivity, or where the ...


5

It's not: the book is incorrect. The issue they have with the sentence is a logic/math one, not an English one: she cannot be faster than everyone in her class, since she's not faster than herself. However, the use of as fast as obviates that problem: she is as fast as herself. So the sentence is fine without else (though I'd unitalicize the sentence).


5

No, it's deviant. The grammar of a foreign phrase in its own language tells you approximately zero about its syntax in English (or about the syntax of an abbreviation for it, which may or may not be the same). Most commonly in modern English AD is used the same way as BC, as a post-modifier of the year. The older form, putting AD before the year, is also ...


5

The implicit verb is simply “be”: Some symbols acquire a multitude of meanings, some [of which] [are] widely shared [meanings], others [of which] [are] personal [meanings], [and] some [of which] [are] contradictory, conflicted, or ambivalent [meanings]. This is a common structure to describe different parts of a subject with different adjectives, ...


5

Most grammatically correct sentences do require verbs. Some don't, like "Why not?" Other sentences cut the verbs, but since they're implied they're still correct. But all this presumes the author wants to be perfectly correct grammatically, which is probably untrue. Grammatical rules aren't laws; you're allowed to ignore them, at the risk of annoying and/or ...


5

Both are possible, with omitted that: This was the fastest [that] I heard [that] someone responded. This was the fastest [that] I heard someone respond. The first one sounds slightly awkward, probably because you have two omitted thats. The construction I heard [that] someone responded is a simple clause followed by reported speech (introduced by ...



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