60,206 reputation
20201299
bio website ideas.lego.com/projects/39075
location Europe, GMT+1
age 35
visits member for 4 years
seen 5 hours ago

Web designer. Instrument player. Book reader.

Oh, and you can vote for my LEGO Ideas project! Then my avatar could be yours to keep.


4h
revised “The way in which”: a grammar mistake or not?
added 88 characters in body
5h
answered “The way in which”: a grammar mistake or not?
9h
answered Take my word for it or take my word for this?
16h
comment The word “was” to not use in writing, dont use the word was
This is complete and utter nonsense. Get a new teacher. And get your money back from the old one.
1d
awarded  Nice Answer
1d
revised Which word(s) does “nuclear” modify in “by nuclear action or radiation or radioactive contamination”
added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
1d
revised Which word(s) does “nuclear” modify in “by nuclear action or radiation or radioactive contamination”
added 6 characters in body
1d
revised “Inter-”, “multi-”, “cross-”, “trans-” in relation to disciplines
added 26 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
1d
comment Is there any difference between 'represent' and 'represent for'?
I could imagine it being the slang meaning of represent. But since we don't have the context, it could also be a simple typo, or an editing mistake (like, they originally had "stands for" there or some such, then replaced the verb but forgot to nuke the preposition). At any rate, if you have to ask this question, you should not be considering represent for at all.
1d
revised “Why X isn't on the campus” or “Why X isn't in the campus?”
edited tags
1d
revised Why “live on campus” but not “live in campus”
edited tags
1d
comment What is wrong with “ He participated in two-miles race ”?
There is no "why". That question rarely makes sense with languages, if ever. In some languages, "two miles race" is grammatical. In others, it's "two mile race". In many if not most, neither is grammatical. There is no why. You might as well wonder why it's "participated" and not "participatora". You just use whatever people have collectively agreed upon. And different people in different places and different times agree on different things.
1d
comment I’ve an Italian degree in “engineering informatics”, so I am a what?
Related: “IT specialist” vs. “computer scientist”
1d
comment Is the phrase “awaiting customer” bad English?
I work in customer support, too. Have been for twenty years. That has nothing to do with anything here, which is why my argument is not an appeal to authority, but a generic observation about how the language works. When you are buying a hat rack, you are not buying a hat. When you are building a race car, you are not building a race. Simple as that. But that's a side note anyway, my answer quite clearly says that "awaiting customer" is "perfectly correct" and "works". You strongly disagree that it's perfectly correct and works, because it's completely feasible. Not sure I'm following.
1d
comment Why are “some” letters silent in English?
Just a quick web search brings up that visarga is silent in Gujarati. It used to be pronounced as /h/, but now no longer is. The Wikipedia article lists a whole range of other features of the language that are not represented in writing. In fact it flat-out says that the very alphabet is actually not an alphabet but an abugida, so that vowel notation is completely secondary by design.
1d
comment “With regard to” vs. “with regards to” vs. “in regards to”
Okay, thanks for editing. Now we can see that the passage actually uses the correct phrase. The dictionary objects to with regards to, with an S. The quoted passage uses with regard to, without an S. Everything in order here.
1d
comment “With regard to” vs. “with regards to” vs. “in regards to”
On a side note, there must be no whitespace before a period or a comma in English. Or in any language.
1d
comment “With regard to” vs. “with regards to” vs. “in regards to”
Please specify where you saw this phrase. If you just saw it, it doesn't make sense to say it was "in some books or read". You really don't remember where you just saw it? It could prove crucial to answering the question. Also, what do you mean by "this phrase"? You have bolded two different phrases. And your title was suggesting you were asking about a third one.
1d
revised “With regard to” vs. “with regards to” vs. “in regards to”
added 44 characters in body; edited title
2d
comment is the phrase 'accelerate success' proper english?
No, it is not proper english, because english is the spin you put on the ball in billiards, and this phrase does not put any spin on the ball in billiards. Like, at all.