Different languages use different mechanisms to convey meaning and tie parts of sentences to other parts.
I learnt recently that ancient Greek (and perhaps modern Greek, but I haven't looked into it) used a slew of prefixes and suffixes to modify verbs and nouns, so that a single word carried a lot of information. Word order didn't matter so much because of ...
There is still semantical pronoun ambiguity in all of them. It’s better to specify “her” with “grandmother” if you truly want to remove pronoun ambiguity.
When Anne’s grandmother died (sic) she lit an extra candle for her on her birthday.
When Anne’s grandmother died, Anne lit an extra candle for her grandmother’s ...
Summarizing the received comments I conclude that there is no natural (i.e. coming spontaneously to mind of native speakers) replacement for an ambiguous personal pronoun.
There is the workaround of adding a defining appositive. The proposed that and that one are complete mistakes. The proposed latter feels stuffy. This was exactly my apprehension and this ...
You can cancel the tickets up to thirty minutes before the scheduled departure of the train.
Here "up to" means time going forwards or "until".
You can cancel the tickets any time but at least thirty minutes before the scheduled departure of the train.
Which is it? "any time" or "at least thirty minutes before"? It says one thing then immediately ...
Is the use of 'up to' semantically correct?
Or, is 'at least' more appropriate to replace 'up to'?
Should it be rewritten to clear the sense in following manner?
up - adverb = upwards (indicating an advance motion, place or time.)
to - preposition
to + substantive = modifier.
Up to + substantive = adverb.
The answer is "yes", for the reasons given in the comments. Computer scientists and some mathematicians habitually start counting from zero, but the inventors of our calendar were not modern computer scientists or mathematicians. In fact, they almost certainly had never heard of the concept of zero, or if they had heard of it, would have rejected it as ...
I suppose this could, technically, be ambiguous. However, colloquially, it's quite clear the sentence refers to your second interpretation. "Don't waste any time doing x" is a common phrase to suggest that they need to do x and only x in a timely manner.
If they were saying they shouldn't come, they'd use "Don't waste your time" or "Don't waste my time" (if ...
You are completely incorrectly thinking that
“English Language & Usage”
is a sentence.
It is not a sentence and has utterly no connection in any way to sentences.
The question is malformed.
Similarly, if one asked "My name is 'John', what is the correct 'long-form'" ..... the question would be completely without meaning.
Stately is the adverb, describing how he 'came from the stairhead'.
Plump is the adjective, describing Buck Mulligan.
Using different adverbs and adjectives (changing the meaning), it is easier to see:
Quickly, fat Buck came from the stairhead.
It is also easier to understand if you re-order the sentence (without changing its meaning):
Plump Buck Mulligan ...
The phrase English language and usage is an example of the syntactic phenomenon called Conjunction Reduction, which omits repeated lexical material in conjoined clauses.
English language and usage
is a reduction, by rule, of
English language and English usage
This is an ordinary kind of conjunction reduction; English need not be repeated.
The most correct long form of the title of this stack is even longer than your disharmonious suggestion:
English Language & English Language Usage
This stack is for the discussion of the English language as well as discussion of the usage of the English language.
"Yes" or "no" is OK. "Sure", "absolutely" etc. sound cooler. Sometimes you can skip "yes" or "no" and tell a joke/where the coffee place is/an actor's name straightforward if you think it's not brusque. Trim your sails.