Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

This is a somewhat archaic construction. The more modern way to say the same thing would be It took the prince three days to die. In my mind, the "was [timespan] dying" construct does serve to emphasize the fact that the person was dying the whole time, rather than "working up to it" in a sense. (And just to be perfectly clear, yes, it does mean that ...


5

It is definitely not common, and just as you suspected it is a play on the previous two examples in the list of "Travelers" and "Givers". It doesn't quite perfectly follow a trend: Traveler, Giver, Artist -- because the first two use the English language -er suffix to suggest the "actioner" of a verb (an action), and "Artist" is not "Arter". But this is ...


4

In the sentence The player appears to have not connected. connected is the focus of negation, and thus not can appear directly before it, as here. However, not can also appear directly before the beginning of any constituent containing its focus. Connected is in the Verb Phrase have connected, so not can go before that, too The player appears to not ...


4

I would use: The player appears not to have connected or The player does not appear to have connected


4

According to this Merriam-Webster link, definition of 'Queue' as a verb is- queue verb \ˈkyü\ : to form or wait in a line transitive verb : to arrange or form in a queue and intransitive verb : to line up or wait in a queue —often used with up. See below two examples of both forms of this usage of queue as a verb - The World's Food ...


3

I looked up the OED's entry for crib-biter, and found the following citation: 1860 J. C. Hotten Dict. Slang (ed. 2) 124 Crib biter, an inveterate grumbler; properly said of a horse which has this habit, a sign of its bad digestion. The relevant meaning of crib is defined thus: A barred receptacle for fodder used in cowsheds and fold-yards; also in ...


3

Based on what you've provided, it sounds like the scenario was: They lit the man on fire. Due to this, he was injured in some major way (e.g. internally). Over the course of 3 days, he was slowly dying from these injuries. Most likely getting worse after each day. After 3 days time, the man died. It may be worth noting for clarity that this does not mean ...


3

My view is someone that received a mortal wound and took three days to die. It gives me the feel that the speaker is "Southern". I don't think a "Yankee" would use the phrase.


2

No, it is not common. In this usage, "art" is being used as a joke. It is poking fun at the English language because the other forms are correct. A traveller is someone who travels. A giver is someone who gives. But an artist is an exception because "art" isn't a valid verb (even though most people will understand what is meant despite the misuse).


2

I agree with your analysis. Indeed, your approach avoids the ambiguity that would be created by pluralizing the verb. "More options are always better" could mean: 1) The concept of having more options is always better 2) The extra options are always better "More options is always better" restricts the possible meaning to the one described at ...


2

This use of dying is a past continuous tense. It signals that the story is going to talk about what was happening during the three days the prince was dying. By dying, the reader should understand that the prince was mortally wounded, continuously getting closer and closer to death, and there was no hope of recovery, but he was not dead yet during this ...


1

According to this article at Oxford Dictionaries online, there is a difference between the spelling in American and British English: These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. ‘Learnt’ is more common in British English, and ‘learned’ in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, ...


1

The sentences come from different base forms (leaving off decorations like "I think", etc): It used to [[have a specific reason] and [(it used to) represent something in the society]]. and It [used to [have a specific reason]] and [(it) [represented something in the society]]. The words in parentheses get deleted by conjunction reduction. Either ...


1

No, it is not correct. You want to say that it cannot be relied on or that one cannot rely on it.



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