New answers tagged

1

It makes sense. It doesn't require punctuation if the intent is accomplished without it. Punctuation obviously alters the meaning or accent. I am seeing myself age, well rounded and full in form. I am seeing myself age well, rounded and full in form. I am seeing myself age, well, rounded and full in form. I am seeing myself, age well rounded and full, in ...


0

No, it is not exactly correct. It is just a lack of punctuation. Or you could try any alternative: something more along the lines of "I'm seeing myself age - becoming well rounded and full in form" or "well rounded and fuller in form"/"rounding well and becoming fuller in form".


1

"You cannot deny the fact that you were given an ample amount of time." The speaker is saying that the listener was given enough time ("an ample amount of" means "enough"), and is saying that there's no (reasonable) way that they could argue that they needed more time. This is a sensible usage: the speaker could be a college professor, and the listener a ...


2

As Hellion mentioned, the sentence was designed to be confusing by reversing the order in English to verb-subject. Normally, our sentences are ordered by subject-verb-object. If you set the order to our normal usage, the meaning is clear. "Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind," turns into, "Sentences ran backward until the mind reeled."


0

"Exhorted" seems like a strange participial adjective to use here; the verb choice seems wrong. "Exerted" is probably the word for which you were looking, and it's a better choice. I also suggest that the third sentence is not the same as the original, since it is now the force that is pushing "them" and not "it." The meaning is somewhat different. To ...


1

Answer This phrase is ambiguous and it is not possible to use hyphens to rescue it. It should be rewritten. If you insist on retaining this phrase as it stands then use three hyphens (computer-crime-targeted) or none (1). However, the hyphens in the resulting phrase will no longer fullfill their original purpose, which was to remove the ambiguity in a ...


1

It was written so. It began so. The sentences above have so as an Adjunct. We can front the Adjuncts. If we do we get: So it was written. So it began. However, we cannot have: *So it was began. (ungrammatical) Why? Well there is no auxiliary BE in sentence (2), so there is no reason to insert one in version (4). Notice as well that after the ...


0

Some comments to this effect have already been made, but I'd like to build on them. Both forms are grammatically correct. In formal written English, the "rather" form looks more elegant. I would suggest that the elegance argument is less important than the flow of the sentence. Your sentence is already a short one, and without the flow of text before and ...


-1

Your hypothesis is right - all the three words should be hyphenated. Since "crime" is a noun that describes "targetted", a participle (adjective), and a noun and a participle aren't complementary (one cannot describe another through a verb - "the laws are targetted very crime" doesn't really make sense), the two words should be hyphenated. The word ...


-4

It would be grammatically correct like this: First computer crime-targeted laws Computer and crime are two separate words. Take this other example: First hacking-targeted laws It is one word plus targeted. In conclusion, put a space between the two words and a hyphen between the two words and targeted.


1

My family and I like to take it easy at the weekend. 'weekend' http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/weekend#translations


1

My family and I like to take it easy at the week-end.


1

First of all, your text consists of two sentences run together. You should split it before 'Additionally'. Other than that, you need additional commas before and after the parenthetical phrase 'meaning higher prices' and another one after 'Additionally'. By the way, 'goods' can't be turned into the singular 'good'. Rather say 'commodity'.


0

I am just confused that "Hope all is well" is just an ending note or a question? It's just politeness. No need for a specific reply.


1

There is no 'difference'. They are both 'habitual' present. 'I am speaking' would convey the present (progressive). Many other languages do not make this distinction.


5

As you've discovered, the ordinary order of English declarative sentences is subject first, verb following, but there are a number of rhetorical or informatic reasons to invert that order. One is that speakers tend to put old information before new information, and another is that speakers prefer to place weightier (i.e., more grammatically-complicated) ...


1

Just to clarify: the difference between the two sentences is the order of the two phrases as needed, and on your hosting account. I would say in this context there is no difference. The servers are both launched and discarded, both as needed and on your hosting account. Unlike for adjectives, there is no general order of multiple prepositional phrases.


-2

If you mean they are discarded when it is needed on your hosting account, then the latter. If you mean they are discarded on your account then the first one.


0

It's strange I can't find a duplicate and I believe there is one. I will try my best to explain it, but it is not easy. The preposition with has a very important function as the below definition indicates: used as a function word to indicate an attendant fact or circumstance: 'He stood there with his hat on' The attendant circumstance means an ...


1

The following relative clause "...who drove his car at another youth resulting in him being flung onto the roof of the car..." was used before the main verb "was given" in the sentence. Journalists are notorious for trying to cram as much information into their lead (often spelled "lede") as they possibly can, without much regard for whether the result ...


1

Good question. Resulting is a participle, and normally a participle modifies a specific noun, usually the subject of a clause. However, in this case you could say the participle modifies nothing specific, or it modifies the entire preceding clause (who drove his car at another youth). It says something about the event described in the clause as a whole: the ...


0

Alas, grammar cannot clear up semantic confusion, and indeed may contribute to it. The sentence has two problems: A basic structure of Don't do A unless you do B. Where A is talking about the greatness of the fatherland while pretending to be proud of the fatherland and B is the contrasting do something to make the fatherland great. This ...



Top 50 recent answers are included