Reputation
57,881
Next tag badge:
99/100 score
20/20 answers
Badges
3 75 191
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~4.1m people reached

2h
comment Grammar of present perfect continous of sit and stand
Sit and stand both refer to body positions, and present perfect continuous (has/have been standing/sitting) is an indication of the length of time the subject has kept the position. So I've been standing here for an hour already is a complaint, because standing for long periods is painful.
3h
comment Introductory phrases and restrictive clauses
That's likely the best choice, because it separates the clauses where the intonation would do it in speech. If the speaker wishes, of course, they can punctuate it any way at all; there are no real rules for comma usage in English.
3h
revised What's the difference in using 's , of, and nothing to show possession in English?
deleted 7 characters in body; edited title
3h
comment Those who or who
Relative clauses modify their antecedent noun phrase, which is teachers in this case; there would be no use for a pronoun those,a which already means teachers. It is also possible to have a relative clause modifying an indefinite pronoun, like those who help us, which means "the people who help us". But you wouldn't say *The teachers the people who help us.
3h
comment What's the difference in using 's , of, and nothing to show possession in English?
English is a Germanic language that's borrowed about half its vocabulary from Romance languages (Latin and French, mostly). The Germanic way to show possessive is with a case marker suffix (the Genitive Case in German, for instance). Apostrophe-S is the remains of the original English Genitive case. However, the Romance languages lost all their cases and conduct business with prepositions instead, and English has picked up the habit, using of as the preposition of possessive, just like de in French or Spanish. That's why there are two of them. That does not explain how to use them.
4h
comment Do any style guides recommend an apostrophe at the end for double possessors? (John and Jacks' house)
Apostrophes can only do so much; they're silent, after all. How would you say the two different sentences with different meanings? If there are two different meanings -- and if there aren't, what's the problem?
4h
comment Can “that ” refer to action?
@Jessica: This is a different that; it doesn't have a meaning. It's just part of the machinery, marking the beginning of a tensed complement clause or a restrictive relative clause. It's not a pronoun, but rather a Complementizer, which has completely different syntax.
4h
comment Can you please explain what “Not to say” means here:
It's a conversational idiom that means, roughly, "Don't take what I just said, or any other signal you might have noticed, to mean that I don't want to go tomorrow; in fact, I might well like it, but I'm waiting for ... to decide."
4h
comment Everything happens for a reason
There are two quantifiers there; a universal quantifier ("all") for things ()wjatever that means), and an existential ("a") for reasons for things. Logically it's For every T there is at least one R (formally t r ( r (t) ). The separate quantifiers mean there's no necessary agreement, unless r and t are set up so that there's one and only one r for every t; but we wouldn't say that this way.
4h
comment Word for cutting a sentence in half the rest of the meaning inferred
Conversationally, the speaker is inviting a contribution from the addressee to fil the gap. That there is a gap would be signalled in speech by intonation, gaze direction, brows and shrugs (signalling question), and other business. In writing, however -- and notice it's always writing that is reporting dialogue; this is a spoken phenomenon -- three little dots will only go so far. It's a really insoluble problem, given the rubegoldbergian status of English spelling and (especially) punctuation.
4h
comment Doubt on the use of an apostrophe
Not knowing how to ask questions about strange phenomena is normal, and can be found in most of the questions here. No need to insult yourself. Asking the question is the important thing.
4h
comment Doubt on the use of an apostrophe
Because Miss Sullivan is the subject of the gerund having, and subjects of gerunds (when they're present -- they're often deleted) may be either possessive (his, my, Miss Sullivan's; that's called the POSS-ing gerund complementizer), or accusative (objective: him, me, Miss Sullivan), which is called the ACC-ing gerund complementizer. Both are correct; it's speaker's choice which one to use -- or whether to leave the subject there at all, for that matter.
5h
comment Your misuse of the apostrophe
And in any case, the Questioner doesn't understand that punctuation is not part of grammar, and that the apostrophe is no part of English (since it's silent in speech, we never use it in talking, and never even realize it's missing). It's used to make reading easier; but if it makes people explode with exclamation points in outrage, its probly time to stop using it altogether.
1d
awarded  Nice Answer
1d
comment Don't VS Doesn't
The reason for the doesn't is that the subject of the relative clause is not you (which is in the clause above), but who. And who almost always appears as third person, and therefore for many people is marked as third person and takes doesn't. Note that it's third person singular, not plural (which would be don't, like you), derived from the singular you; but for those people it's still third person. This is the kind of situation that either changes the rule or throws up some frozen idioms that set a new pattern.
1d
comment the omitted “t” sound
No, that's not true. What actually happens is that there is a glottal stop [ʔ] allophone of /t/ that often occurs between a stressed vowel and an unstressed one, (like all the examples you present). Thus, bottle /batl/ would be pronounced ['baʔḷ]. Your teacher probly didn't know the name for glottal stop (mnemonic: ['glɔʔḷ stɔp]), which is the sound separating the vowels in "Uh-oh!" ['ʔəʔo] and occurs as a consonant phoneme in many languages.
1d
comment To prolong vs to protract
The biggest difference is that protract is not a verb. English borrowed the participial adjective protracted from Latin to mean drawn-out (literally), but didn't borrow the rest of the verb, so we only have the adjective. You can't say He protracted the meeting by arguing about every definition; you could say prolonged or lengthened or a number of other verbs, but not protracted. And then there's the fact that the agent noun formed from protract is a tool for geometric measurement -- a protractor, involving angles instead of lines.
1d
comment Handling a mass noun
It isn't always a good idea to be too concise. For instance, in the original sentence, motion is deleted before on ratchet effects by conjunction reduction. That's OK, but since you're making a point about what motion is, repeating the word motion is a good thing because it gives your audience (who may not be paying attention, after all) another chance to figure out what you're on about.
1d
comment Why are all of these sentences considered grammatical?
Because they have been taught badly and now make their living teaching others badly. Sorry about that, but it's not my fault. It's not their fault, either, because their teachers were ignorant, too. But that's the way it is.
1d
comment Why are all of these sentences considered grammatical?
Sure. Like I said, punctuation is not part of grammar. There are no real rules for punctuation.