Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

A slightly more explanatory option: This is the name we'll use in future communication with you.


0

You might find the answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroponym Antroponyms are names for Persons. You could theoretically say we'll anthroponymize you as follows: Or Josh61 answer is good too. We'll be adressing or reffering to you by the following name:


0

You can also use the passive, and say: You will be referred to by this name. You will be addressed by this name.


0

You can also say: We will address you as Mr....


0

If a sentence is repeated often enough, it can be understood if a few words are left out. For example, did you understand the sentence? I'm sure you did. The sentence is abridged: shortened by condensing. This doesn't mean removing critical elements of a sentence; they are all there. Abridging does not make the sentence wrong. If it is easily understood, ...


0

Both of your examples are understandable (and "correct"). I believe it would be better with more active phrasing, Your password must contain at least 6 characters.


0

You second sentence is correct, or Choose a password of at least 6 characters.


1

I suggest replacing "kindly" with "please" or using a "would you" construction instead. Can you please send me more information about the project? Would you (please) send me more information about the project? Or simply: Please send me more information about the project.


1

Either would convey the meaning, but only the second one is unambiguous. Can you kindly send me more information about the project? Can be responded to (by someone in a bit of a strop) with 'Yes, I can, do you want me to ?' But Kindly send me more information about the project Is clearly a request that you want more information sent to you.


1

With regard to your first point: yes, the sentence is grammatically acceptable without preceding the clause "you used them" by 'that' or 'which'. You are using what is called a 'zero relative pronoun', which—although uncommon in other Germanic languages—does exist in English.It is also sometimes referred to as a 'zero clause' or a 'contact clause'. The ...


0

All of those sentences are correct. As it's a restrictive clause "that" is more commonly used; additionally "in which" sounds clunky. Therefore it would be better to use "that", but all are correct. The first sentence is an example of reduced relative clause. These are perfectly acceptable, so long as they don't give rise to ambiguity; which yours doesn't.


3

I'm not sure what Strunk and White mean by "loose sentences," but the paragraph certainly uses the passive voice too much! By using the active voice, I've been able to convey the same meaning with about 40 fewer words. The word count for the original version is about 98; for my version, about 58. The Boston Symphony, joined by soloist Edward Appleton, ...


1

Just like in Slovene, this is a participle clause. And just like in Slovene, it is a clause and not a sentence. It is not a complete thought that can stand on its own syntactically or semantically. Also, just like in Slovene, such parentheticals can be set off with commas, parentheses, or dashes, but not with hyphens (which is what you have here). As an ...


5

I took a stab at it: A large audience attended the third concert of the subscription series last evening. Mr. Edward Appleton, a proven soloist of first rank, was supported by the Boston Symphony Orchestra which again proved itself fully deserving of its high reputation. The Committee is gratified with the interest in their series, and has planned similar ...


1

Here is my attempt. I've taken out all but one of the constructions Strunk and White object to (namely, sentences joined in the middle with "and", "while", "when" etc) and changed the sentence order a little for clarity, but I haven't rewritten it completely as modern English. My reordering removed the need for the usage of "former" and "latter", which, ...


0

Last evening, the Committee held their third subscription series concert with a well-attended performance featuring soloist, Mr. Edward Appleton and the instrumental music of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Artist, Mr. Edward Appleton exemplified a first-rank performer, and the Boston Symphony Orchestra's high reputation was left unblemished. An equally ...


2

Most native speakers would avoid the past perfect here in favor of the simple past. Before I baked the cake, I mixed it. The use of the past perfect is acceptably grammatical, though. It helps to denote a sequence of events: Before I baked the cake, I had mixed it. But, because you used before it is not necessary to use the past perfect to ...


0

Past Perfect shouldn't be used alone in the sentence. My teacher explained me that it is a 'tense-grandfather' which is only used to mark the past action that occurred before another past action. Basing on this knowledge, I can say that your sentence is grammatically correct: Before I baked the cake, I had already mixed it.


4

A comma is either necessary or forbidden, depending on the meaning. For example, here is a context that would require a comma: A previous version of this standard used sender codes, which offered some protection against unauthenticated messages, but were vulnerable to replay attacks if the same sender could send multiple messages. To address this, we ...


-1

Well, point something out means to direct one's attention to something with your hand or finger or to say something about someone/something in order to make someone aware of something. I don't know what the person has told you, but looking at it from what we have, it looks like you want to say something along the lines of sharing with me. Thank you for ...


0

Past perfect should always be in the past. To clarify: "Before I baked the cake, I had already mixed it." - is correct but not idiomatic. "Before he bakes the cake, he had already mixed it" - is technically correct but not at all idiomatic. It would be more idiomatic to say: "Before he bakes the cake he has already mixed it" "Before he had backed the cake, ...


1

The sentence given in your example is correct for colloquial use, although as you've pointed out, it's somewhat idiomatic. A more logically watertight example could be: I'll wish you a nice vacation now, in case I don't see you beforehand.


1

ALL PRODUCTS ARE FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY would be a good, concise explanation and would actually be a clear reference to only the products on the website, just from the context of its location.


3

I disagree that "all products" implies all products in existence, because it is clear from the context that it refers only to products on this particular website. Consider a menu that says "All prices include 10% service & 15% VAT" - one does not assume that this means all prices in existence, just those on this menu. (Not to mention that "All the ...


-1

Saying ALL PRODUCTS ARE FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY seems to imply that all products (all products on Earth? all products in the known Universe?) are for research use only. Using the definite article ("the") narrows the focus of the sentence to "the products" - i.e. the products which the web page is talking about. Update, another possibility has been ...



Top 50 recent answers are included