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 ...


9

First, the present participle trying does not act as a component of a progressive construction here; it acts as an adjective, meaning "annoying" or "tedious". The lecture ... might have been tedious ... Consequently, the verb in the consequence clause (then clause, apodosis) of this conditional sentence is simply might have been: the ordinary past ...


8

The verb in that sentence is made. The direct object is advances (or advances in road construction, taken as a phrase).


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 ...


8

There is no limit to the number of things you can list in a single sentence in English, or in French, or in Belorussian, or in Japanese, or in Arabic, or in Nahuatl, or in Malayalam, or indeed in any language, dialect, idiolect, slang or jargon, natural or constructed, living or dead.


8

In British English, one makes out a cheque, so you could ask: Who should I make the cheque out to, please?


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

If you're chatting, as Bill Franke said, it's whether you're understood that matters. Both of your suggestions work. The second one is grammatically correct. Even less formal but quite colloquial, and what I'd probably say when chatting: "Going to shower. Back soon."


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

Valid constructions: too <adjective> to <verb> so <adjective> that <condition/state expressed as a standalone sentence> There is no such construction "too <adjective> that <condition>".


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

Clauses beginning with Why are often used as headings to articles that answer the implied question, but the use of a question mark in such cases is inappropriate and misleading.


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.


6

The phrase “Build We Won’t” is meant to echo (as tragedy or as farce) a once-popular U.S. phrase: “Dig We Must.” The origin of the latter phrase (which in full read either “Dig we must for a greater New York” or “Dig We Must for Growing New York,” depending on which source you believe) appeared on warning signs posted during the 1950s by Consolidated Edison ...


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

This is a dialectal construction common in many places in the U.S. There's quite a bit of linguistic literature on it, summarized in this Language Log post. Since need is a semi-modal in Negative Polarity environments, and therefore quite irregular, like all NPIs and all modal auxiliaries, it's predictable that it will participate in idioms and variant ...


5

This is perfectly correct. If you don't like the sound of it you could make it more elegant (in my opinion) by changing it to: He arrived ten minutes earlier than he was supposed to have done.


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

If you insert that between advised and you, I think you will see that the sentence is made up of one main clause and one subordinate clause.



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