Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

"I'm only asking..." is an apology for daring to ask. Example "What's that you are holding?" "None of your business." "Oh, sorry, I was only asking." (This means "I was merely asking") "I'm asking only because ..." is an explanation for asking. "What's that you are holding?" "Why?" "I'm asking only because it's leaked on ...


0

It is a complex-compound sentence. There is only one main clause, but there are multiple subordinate clauses that are coordinated on their level: Along with every other devoted Aussie trackydack dagger, I beg the federal government to This is your core of your main clause. What follows are the subclauses: ban these abhorrent, foreign "cuffs" ...


0

Run-on sentence - a long overly verbose sentence better grouped in multiple sentences and paragraphs


0

You'll have to check your style guide, either the one you've adopted or the one thrust upon you. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends a comma after a non-restrictive subordinate clause ("even though...") following the independent clause ("we tried ..."). But there's a second reason, and that's to prevent what linguist Steven Pinker calls a "garden path," ...


0

The way I understand this particular use of the comma is as introducing an insertion: "When the shy squirrels found us, we tried to feed them too (even though we had really planned to feed only the geese and ducks) and we had only a small piece of bread" In other words, the comma isn't there because of the "even though". Having said that, I'm not sure why ...


0

He had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. If i was the writer of that sentence, I think I would use something like: He didn't take a fish during eighty-four days. Well, Michael, that's why he's Hemingway and you're not :) During and for express different ideas with respect to time. "During" refers to time as a bounded ...


1

It is correct. I read it as "(at the past instant that we are imagining) he had gone eighty-four days now (emphasing that we are to imagine that particular instant)" without taking a fish. The effect of the sentence is to place the reader firmly with the man at that moment in the past. Your alternative is a correct construction but gives no such feeling, ...


0

"He had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish." I see your "problem", as you call it. This sentence uses an expression, "to go without", which means "to be denied or deprived of (something, esp food)". Further, when we refer to the quantity of time that has gone by, we use the word, "now", which means, "it's been eighty-four days until now". ...


1

As Dan Bron said, the phrase What <name> said! means that you agree with what they said, or that you would say the exact same thing. In some cases, this is used by someone who was asked a question, but is interrupted by another person. For example, Johnny asks Wendy, "How could he possibly fly all by himself?!" Bob interjects, saying, "The answer is ...


1

Yes, this is correct. What you've done with the 's is omit the noun that's being modified, i.e.: A society so vibrant and diverse as America's society is bound to dominate. You can also omit the 's, which would imply that American is a society rather than having a society (which, to be honest, kind of mean the same thing). However, the second sentence ...


0

Your original sentence already presents readers with a shortened version of this longer idea: A computer is a useful device and it is an essential device. In shortening it, you adopted the tactic of putting two phrases into parallel, which you signaled by adding the word both before the start of the branches: A computer is both a useful ...


0

I think you should actually omit the article an, since and joins the modifiers useful and essential, which both directly modify a device: a (useful and essential) device If this were a list of items, each with its own distinct modifier, I think the proper way to list them is either all with- or all without the respective article.


0

In English, verbs can be followed by an infinitive or a gerund and can be grammatically correct. However, there are verbs that can only be followed by an infinitive or a gerund...some verbs can be followed by both. For example, "enjoy:" I enjoy listening to music, is acceptable, however I enjoy to listen to music is not acceptable, so "enjoy" is always ...


0

Your first too examples look correct to me. "She does not mind working the night shift" is also fine. 'night shift' and day shift' are common terms, so need to preceded with 'the'. Also valid is "She does not mind doing THE night shift" "she does not mind working A night shift." "she does not mind working night shiftS."


0

Proceed is an "intransitive" verb: it cannot be used with a direct object, only with a subject. That is, you cans say "X proceeds", but not "We proceed X". As such, you also cannot use the passive voice ("be proceeded") since the point of passive is to express that an object gets acted upon; since there can be no object, there can be no valid passive ...


0

The second is correct. "Preceded means "come before," and doesn't make sense here.


2

I believe complex sentences don't always need a conjunction. For example, the sentence which precedes this one is conjunctionless yet complex.


3

A complex sentence has more than one clause, and a clause requires a subject and verb. "At her age" is a prepositional phrase, which doesn't contain a verb, so your sentence remains simple. Conjunctions may be omitted. Punctuation may take their place: Minggay Awok was lonely; her only companions were a few charcoal black chickens. His business ...


1

From a purely native speaker's (non-linguist) perspective: there is essentially no difference in the 'meaning' of these sentences. Basically they both say It is better to show you my work(s). Would in English is a softening word, that is, a word or phrase which makes us sound less demanding. For comparison, Turn down that music. Would you turn down ...


0

I would see it as a typo that was not corrected. I would delete this "what" and read "Simply describe the data that you collected".


0

The second is much better than the first. Here are several reasons why: 1) 'realistic to live by' in the first sentence just sounds odd to me. Perhaps if you put some sort of degree adverb there it would be better; for example, 'realistic enough to live by' might improve the sense. 2) by moving the 'live by' next to 'rules', the second sentence becomes ...


0

Both the sentences are correct and have the same meaning, with the place of the phrase "to live by" changed as follows: "realistic to live by" "rules to live by" However, that doesn't change the overall meaning of the sentences.


1

I am reading them as they are posted. Because "documents" is plural, you need to use "them" and "they". Because the sentence is in the present tense, you must use "are", which is the present tense form of the verb "to be". This may seem confusing, since "being" is also a form of "to be", but it is the progressive tense form, which is used to highlight the ...


1

The first one is correct. I'm reading them documents as they are being posted.


1

You can certainly use sheer beauty in this way. Sheer beauty, in this sense, means that the film is very beautiful and that its beauty can be considered on its own. So, your friend is saying that the film is so very beautiful that, irrespective of its other virtues or faults, it incites repeat viewings. However, there are some errors in your sentence: it ...


0

Using "would" seems mandatory, but I think this is a small thing compared to the confusion in the rest of the sentence. The long "Regarding" clause immediately confused me, then a parenthetical location, as if it's an afterthought, then the CEO and Burke in disturbingly close proximity (good thing you mentioned they were different people), with Sinclair's ...


1

gave is the past tense, so it should only be used if teachers no longer give children time for play and sports. If the practice is ongoing, the present tense give should be used.


1

Perhaps the best comparison is with move for (/ move that) move for: move for something to make a parliamentary or legal motion in favor of something. I move for dismissal of the case against my client. My lawyer moved for a recess of the trial. [McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002] move that: move 11. ...


0

I've thinking about the same thing, The second one feels to me the most correct, both are close enough and there's no grammar mistake, what i mean is that both have different grammar but the same meaning


1

The two sentences are often used interchangeably and you should never assume a literal distinction. However, in the literal sense, "I am not talking science here" would mean, "I am not using scientific jargon that you would not be able to understand," while "I am not talking about science here" would mean, "I am not talking about the scientific subject, I ...


2

Get him on board with the project is the popular phrase for introducing someone to a project. on board if someone is on board, they are working with an organization or group of people A new financial director has been brought on board to help us assess the cost of the project. We hope to have a new doctor on board by the end of the month. ...


0

As rightly explained by Brian, "feeling well rested" is a phrase. A phrase is a group of words giving incomplete meaning. Phrases are to be viewd from the point of construction as well as from that of function.In your phrase-- feeling well rested-- 'feeling' is a particple(partly verb + partly adjective). Your phrase is a participle phrase by construction ...


0

No, I do not see it that way. I think you're focusing so much on independent and dependent clauses that you perceive everything as one or the other. This is not true. ", feeling well rested" is not a clause. It is an adverbial phrase, modifying "woke. It tells _how_he woke. That's all there is to it. Nothing about I vs. D clauses.


1

I believe your friend is correct. The easiest way I've found to interpret it is to break it into the two thoughts that it's trying to express. Infrared emissions radiated from Earth's surface. This radiation would otherwise be transmitted back into space.


1

It's an archaic construction, inverting the verb and the subject, and using the (nearly obsolete) subjunctive form of the verb, to convey a conditional. It survives much more in the past (where, apart from were, the subjunctive is the same as the ordinary past). So: Had I known ... = If I had known ... Had he seen it, ... = If he had seen it, ... ...



Top 50 recent answers are included