The supervisor's edit is ungrammatical because it uses two Determiners within the same immediate noun phrase. As shown below, this is ungrammatical in modern English:
*the my car
The full story:
the slimy dinosaurs
Noun phrases come in two chunks. They have a Determiner and a Head. In (1) above, the Determiner is the word the, and the Head is ...
The default pronoun to use in English is the objective case. See this EL&U.SE answer. For example, if you were to label a picture, you would label it "me at the beach in 2011" and not "I at the beach in 2011".
The signature is neither a subject nor an object, as it is not part of a sentence. Thus, the correct pronoun is "me".
Short answer - you are right, your supervisor is wrong.
However he could have said
"Here, we will use the Kukhtarev model to describe the ..."
The possessive is not used in this version.
So it's either "Kukhtarev's model" or "the Kukhtarev model"
"But" functions as both a conjunction and a preposition. If you look at "but" as a conjunction, it leads to that other sentence -- "she does not like you".
But if you look at "but" as a preposition, it means "except for". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/but
If "except for" were substituted for "but", the preposition would take an object, in the ...
“He is wished to be here” is marginally grammatical, but in practise very unlikely.
Although he may be cast in the “object” case with an infinitival complement (I wish him to be here), it is not an actual object of the verb wish. It is actually the subject of the clause complementing wish, (I wish that he were here) and only formally ...
The relevant portion of the linked article is sloppily written.
It is correct to say that "whom" is ungrammatical in these sentences:
He is demanding £5,000 from the elderly woman who has ruined his life.
Mr Reynolds is highly critical of journalists, who just use labels to describe him.
It is incorrect to describe "elderly woman" and &...
We need to think about the speaker and listener in all communications, and bear in mind that all communication requires inference on the part of the listener, in order to correctly interpret what the speaker is trying to say. Communication requires pragmatism from both parties.
So, when someone says "panda bear", they could be talking about anything. It ...
In Old English, thou was used for addressing one person and ye for more than one, both as clause subject. Thee and you were used as object.
During the Middle English period, ye/you came to be used as a polite singular form alongside thou/thee.
During Early Modern English, the distinction between subject and object uses of ye and you gradually disappeared. ...
In the first sentence, traditional grammar regards I as the subject and the cake as the object. In the second sentence, the cake is the subject and there is no object.
Functional grammar, however, takes a rather different view. It calls the subject and object Participants and the verb a Process. In the first sentence, I and the cake are Participants and ate ...
In “I wonder the origin of the word”, origin appears to be the direct object of the verb, with wonder being used transitively.
OED has examples of this use, which is equivalent to the modern wonder at:
†3. a. trans. To regard with wonder; to marvel at: often implying profound admiration (cf. wonder n. 7c). Obs.
1593 B. Barnes Parthenophil & ...
I'd say that 1-4 are hybrid constructions where "no" is a determinative functioning as a determiner in construction with a gerund-participial VP head.
In 1. and 4. the post head NPs are objects, but in in 2. and 3. the post-head dependents are not NPs but interrogative complement clauses where 2. means There’s no telling the answer to the question "what ...
So the question is, if someone says "panda bear", what are they referring to?
Well, they are referring to either a panda or a bear, unless it is something else entirely.
The technical term for the object being referred to (whether concrete or abstract) is a referent:
referent noun [ C ] specialized
the person, thing, or idea that a word, phrase, ...
I don't think signing a letter with a personal pronoun fits into the conventional format of a letter. As such, I don't think this question is really answerable. You can do whatever you want; you're already breaking the rules of letter-writing.
Some old-fashioned closings for letters made use of a copulative verb before the signature. E.g. see the following &...
The choice is not between him and me and he and I, but between him and me and his and my. But in any case, this sounds like a fabricated sentence unlikely to occur in the normal speech of native speakers. Apart from anything else, there's something wrong with the syntax. It looks as if you want the simple occurrence to be the subject of the sentence. If so, ...
"Take X into account" generally works better when X is not a lengthy expression. "Take into account X" generally works better when X is long enough that the reader might have lost the sense of "take" by the time "into account" rolls around. The less experienced the likely reader, the shorter the maximum length of X before it ought to appear after "into ...
A traditional definition of "direct object" is that it says what receives the action of the verb. The verb gives some action or event, and whatever the direct object refers to is affected by that action or event. By that test, in your example, "the door" is not a direct object, because the door needn't be affected by the cat running out of it.
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and say it's in a vase
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and call the a***hole a vase
would both also be valid paraphrasings of the same sentence, but the original works too. Although grammatically the "it" could refer to either the flower or the a***hole in
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and call ...
It's allowed but uncommon these days (it was more common once). I wouldn't be surprised if some regional forms had it heavily, but I would advise avoiding it as unidiomatic yourself.
Interestingly, it's more common in the negative, where it means that something was expected: "I don't wonder he had a heart attack, he lived on fried food and smoked forty a ...
The name Judas is indeed the object of the phrase in which it appears. However, this has no bearing on the selection of pronoun in a subsequent phrase, where the name can be used in a different function.
If you apply the "whom/him" test to the phrase where you're actually trying to use who/whom, you'll get
Who is a legitimate user of the system? He is ...
"A hundred qualified applicants in this folder" is perfectly grammatical, and a reasonable turn of phrase; it is an example of metonymy:-
a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its
own name but rather by the name of something associated with that
thing or concept
This is not a case where you would properly use zero determiner. That said, while your example sentence ignores the general rule for using a determiner, it does not strike me as wrong so much as terse. It sounds like it's on the continuum with Telegram style. I would expect to see a sentence such as yours in a place where space is at a premium, such as in a ...
A grammatical Object is a noun (phrase) which “receives the action” of a verb: either a Direct Object (which undergoes the action) or an Indirect Object (which receives the Direct Object or benefits from the action).
The verb BE, however, does not take objects of either sort. It is not an ordinary verb, ...
Yes, the last it is necessary for the sentence to make grammatical sense.
Receive, when applied to specific objects (like the box), is transitive, so it needs an object to be acted upon. You receive the box; "the box" is nicknamed it (for the purposes of this sentence; this is called anaphora), hence you receive it.
That said, it sounds much better to me ...
According to Google Ngram, men are shrugging their broad, heavy, great shoulders less and less.
But before that, let's see what men and women shrug most often according to Google Books.
For men I entered the expression shrugged his *. The asterisk symbol which follows will display the first word that comes after the pronoun his. Note that it is ...
The rule will add one or more assertions. You could put or more in parentheses if you like. I can't think of any other way of writing this that doesn't sound inelegant or, worse, downright nonsensical when read aloud.
Promise is a very troublesome verb, syntactically speaking.
Most bitransitive communicational verbs, like tell, order, or ask, take infinitive complements with B-Equi from the Indirect Object, thus:
Su told/ordered/asked IO [(for IO) to VP], as in
They told him to prune the peaches.
She ordered him to leave immediately.
I asked her to stop by after church....
In fact the word "have" connotes custody, not ownership. "My" connotes ownership. So the two statements
I have the pen.
The pen is mine.
...are not equivalent. It might be my pen, but you have it. Give it back! If I say "I have a pen" there might be an implication that it is my pen, but it might be yours and it is merely in my custody or possession.