Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

I disagree that the two examples you cite are double noun pairs. "Knock-kneed" is a compound word used as an adjective describing the condition of a person's legs. And in like manner, "froth-corrupted" is a compound word that aptly describes the lungs for a person suffering from certain respiratory conditions, such as advanced emphysema.


0

I see this as holding a very strict context with one and only one possible valid interpretation. A statement was made by "all" at some point in the past that has a truth value. They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself If I merely believe that I could build a dream home by myself, I would have a weak disagreement with their ...


6

There's actually a bit of a problem here - the sentence, as provided, without context or a follow-up, is indeed ambiguous. I'll illustrate first: They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't. This is how you resolved the sentence, with the meaning that the person built the home but had help - but this isn't the only ...


0

There is little difference between these two ellipses: They all told me that I couldn't ( build my dream home by myself;) but I didn't (build my dream home by myself.)> They all told me that I couldn't ( build my dream home by myself;) and I didn't (build my dream home by myself.) It is a matter of Rhetoric: possibly Suggestio falsi 1 ...


1

They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't. They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, I didn't build my dream home by myself. They were wrongheaded to warn (or predict) that I would be unable to build the dream house on my own because it was never my intention to act alone. The ...


1

They all told me that I couldn't build my dream home by myself; but, (the thing is,) I didn't (try to do it, I had help). He's saying they were wrong to assume I was trying to build it by myself. EDIT: The conjunction AND, unlike BUT, doesn't always provide contrast. Therefore, you might be right in saying that using and is ambiguous here. It could ...


2

A couple of good suggestions from Atkins, but you could also improve the clarity by removing the redundant "... he wore" which would immediately remove the confusion: She left small pins in all his shoes, to injure his feet.


1

I gathered your intended interpretation on first reading, but your second meaning could also be taken. A comma would help: She left small pins in all the shoes he wore, to injure his feet. But to be completely clear, reorder the sentence thus: To injure his feet, she left small pins in all the shoes he wore.


0

(1.) Note that in your example B is arguably not "the opposite of A" but "all possible items in the set with the exception of A. eg Slightly 'strange' but I thinks makes the point - "If I was given the choice of a primary colour I'd choose Red, otherwise I could choose Green or Blue. "Green or Blue" or Green or Blue alone are NOT the opposite of Red. ...


3

Yes, the sentence is perfectly proper English. It is possible to construe two different meanings from the sentence, yes; but the second meaning is extremely unlikely. I had to read the sentence four times after reading your question before I realised what the second interpretation would be. It would be a very strange question to ask. (It’s already a bit odd ...


0

"to meet" refers to the bare event of "meeting", which was in the past, hence "happened to meet". "to have met" refers to the state of "having met", which is a present state, hence "happen to have met". I don't think there is any use of "happen" where you would need to refer to a past state, and so "happened to have met" just won't be used. The differences ...



Top 50 recent answers are included