Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

2

Syntacticians often consider "my" to be a definite determiner, in the same category as "the", "that", and possessives in "'s". You might reasonably consider it to be a logical prepositional phrase, since "my father" means *"the father of me", which has been changed by replacing the "the" (expressing the definiteness) with the possessor "me's" expressed as ...


2

You can say either: I've got money, more than you (do). I've got more money than you (do). I watch TV, more than you (do). I watch more TV than you (do). "I have money less..." is non-idiomatic and I don't think you'll hear someone saying it.


2

Perhaps it's because its is not commonly usually used as a pronoun. In contrast, his is. In the Oxford Dictionaries Online, his is listed as both a possessive determiner and as a stand alone possessive pronoun. However, its is only listed as a possessive determiner. However, Collins English version also limits its to a determiner, but its American version ...


1

Literally, organization X called Y together: [WITH OBJECT] Announce or decide that (an event, especially a meeting, election, or strike) is to happen: But organization X gathered Y together: [WITH OBJECT] Bring together and take in from scattered places or sources: Calling Y together is a part of the process of gathering Y together, ...


1

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) regard my as a pronoun used in Determiner function. It is definitely not a preposition or an adjective! It has none of the syntactic properties of either prepositions or adjectives!


1

If you're intending to explicitly convey that the second part of your sentence is a consequence of the first, I'd suggest you use the very common word therefore, which has exactly that meaning and is often used when the consequence is a longer phrase or sentence: those with power use it to benefit them and make themselves more powerful; therefore, those ...


1

No. As you say, that's horrendous to read and doesn't make sense. Just list them instead, noting that in other cases it may be necessary to use the Oxford Comma. Engaging in art and science is necessary, cathartic, arduous and time-consuming. Note that I've removed the second 'engaging in' as well, so 'are' becomes 'is' since you're referring to ...


1

I assume you realise that the need to ask the question implies that you need to reword from the start and you're asking for academic reasons. While it may be grammatical to treat this sort of sentence as nests of boolean operations, it's almost certainly not sensible. You will rapidly introduce ambiguity especially if you have phrasal entities. You can't ...


1

It sounds like you are attempting to circumvent a problem in a legalistic way. In purely technical terms, a comma does not end a sentence. However even if it did, you would still have some words that are hard for the reader to understand. Your objective should not be to obey some rule, but rather to implement the reason for the rule. I have some expertise ...


1

The original and your rewrite express different agents. In the original somebody (presumably the government) aims the laws at a target, as you might aim a rifle; The clause expresses the government's intention to stop domestic violence by means of the laws. In your rewrite the laws are anthropomorphized, treated as themselves capable of aiming at a goal. ...


1

I'd say "Jesus-style", because when you link the two words with a hyphen, they're then acting as an adverb modifying "he rose". "Dead Jesus style" is potentially ambiguous - it could mean "He rose in dead-Jesus style" [in the style of dead Jesus] - which is nonsense semantically but possible grammatically. As for "list of things ...", the hyphens are ...


1

I would use a dash and commas to separate each of the explanatory thoughts. Removing the redundant pronouns and verbs makes it even cleaner. Cake is really bad for you - it contains a large amount of sugar, common allergens, and looks silly.


1

The sentence is not grammatical in English (I don't know why). Your two renderings into pseudo-English are logically equivalent.


1

You should put these adverbs after the verbs. You may put them elsewhere, but it is awkward.


1

A is fine. B is not, since it does not satisfy the pattern of conjunction reduction. To get B, with 3 things coordinated, we'd have to start with: *"You are cool, you are funny, and you are are among the most popular of students at this school." so that each conjunct starts in the same syntactic environment, that is: [you are ___].



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