Thursday, May 13, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

starting conjunctions and sentence fragments

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:51 AM PDT

Apparently, it is Ok to start sentences with a conjunction: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/starting-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction

On the other hand, apparently it is best to avoid sentence fragments: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/mistake-of-the-month-sentence-fragments/

My question is, how can a sentence that starts with a conjunction NOT be a sentence fragment. And if so, should we avoid such sentences or not? The evidence seems to be mixed.

Bugs on a computer of electrical device [closed]

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:04 AM PDT

What is a computer bug and how do they affect us?

Is this use of up to correct?

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:00 AM PDT

I came across this doubt.

If I want to say, for example. "This inventor is a genius, he can create from a simple chair up to a sophisticated car engine" Is that correct? I don't know how to use the prepositions when you want to use that expression. another example. "I eat everything from the worst of the meals up to a delicious pizza"

I know the structure but I wonder if I am using these prepositions wrong.

I searched on the internet but couldn't find this, so I came here to ask you guys. Thanks a lot!

NO I DISAGRE IS IMPOSSIBLE Ryan World said light is not possible [closed]

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:32 AM PDT

just no if ryan said impossible it is true because he is 5 and i think him is cool 5 yearr oald gang is awseome

What is the best word for reasonably unreasonable?

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:49 AM PDT

I will give you three examples.

Example 1:

A model who joined in ethnic arm group posted her photos of military training on facebook and later Myanmar military air-stroke their training site. A lot of opinion posts are seen on Facebook like this:

Photos include metadata and this is why military dictators can locate their location using its metadata.

Actual fact is that Facebook removes metadata (location data) once user uploaded their photos to the facebook. Plus, bases of ethnic arm group are well-known to the public. Training sites are near it.

In this case, metadata includes location data, which is true. Government can track with its metadata, which is true. But what is false is : government can track photos downloaded from Facebook, which Facebook already remove its metadata (location data) to the users.

So, I must say this is wrong reasoning and reasonably unreasonable.

Example 2

Someone posted on Facebook with a story:

While I was teaching at the class, I wanted to scold my students and to understand me how hard I prepared the course and how to teach them when my students are not interested in learning. A true fact is how hard I prepared for them. But the truth is not always good to tell. Likewise, the truth is not always good in courts.

In this example, his metaphor is in different context. Court and justice are a system running on true facts and evident facts. I must say this is reasonably unreasonable or unrelated.

Example 3:

A Buddhist monk in Myanmar preached that if a country developed with technology and modern things, the country will be less religious and Buddha missionary and he explained with lots of evidence facts. He concluded that democracy is therefore toxic and military government is better for Myanmar and Buddhism.

He explained his facts and evidence facts reasonably with development status of countries. But he tried to connect his explanation with democracy.

I must say that it is reasonably unreasonable.

These examples are like conspiracy theory but they are not conspiracy theory. I think they are reasonably unreasonable. Is there any scientific term or the best word (like conspiracy theory) for reasonably unreasonable?

As I'm researching it, is it called formal fallacy or circular reasoning?

indirect object + infinitive without "to" - is this correct? [duplicate]

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:16 AM PDT

I am wondering whether it is correct to use the infinitive without "to" in a construction as follows:

"Also old people can become mentors, which helps them spend their free time productively."

or should it be

"Also old people can become mentors, which helps them TO spend their free time productively."

I found more hits for the second version which sounds better to my ears. But maybe the first one is grammatical too?

Thanks

Is "seekage" correct?

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:03 AM PDT

Like for "pack" there is "package" and for "store" there is "storage" can we have for "seek" "seekage". Or is there a more appropriate or correct word?

Defination of seek:

attempt or desire to obtain or achieve (something).
"the new regime sought his extradition"

Possible usage of "seekage":

The seekage of pleasure.

Compare the above usage with the statements:

The search for pleasure.

The persuite of pleasure.

differences among verb + adjective / adverb / being adjective / to be adjective

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:26 AM PDT

It is said all of these are available grammatically and colloquially. Are there any nuances among them?

He's often driving ( ).

  • angry
  • angrily
  • being angry
  • to be angry

Why is the Internet being considered a person now?

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:34 AM PDT

This is not an isolated case; I've been noticing quite a bit lately that news articles are referring to "people in general" or "a lot of people" as "the Internet." Here's the latest example I've seen (from the News app on my iPhone):

enter image description here

Naturally, the Internet cannot be amazed at anything. It is not a person; it is not a sentient entity.

So why are reporters/writers now calling "people" by the medium they access to respond to things or events?

Before the Internet, a newspaper would say, "Our readers seem to be amazed by Nixon's love for his dog Checkers"; a radio announcer might say, "Many of our listeners find the music of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes to be derivative" (or something like that).

What's with the Internet being treated like a collective mass of humanity?

Could anyone explain the meaning and rhetoric of the following four-letter word?

Posted: 13 May 2021 07:04 AM PDT

Late in the third quarter of a March game between the Utah Jazz and the New Orleans Pelicans, Rudy Gobert, the Jazz's 7-foot-1 center, caught a pass and slammed down a dunk as the Pelicans' Josh Hart leapt to contest the shot.

As the two National Basketball Association players jogged back down the court, television viewers could see Mr. Gobert bark out something to Mr. Hart.

Trash talk? Sort of.

"As I was running back on defense, I told him that would be a nice Top Shot Moment right there," Mr. Gobert said in an interview. Mr. Hart said he had responded with a four-letter word that was not suitable to be printed.

This is the first sentences of a New York Times article about NFTs, or nonfungible tokens, that features NBA, the American professional basketball league.

The four-letter word mentioned in the last sentence appears to me the f-word. But the use of the indefinite article a indicates a somewhat unsure and unspecific status of that word in question, perhaps creating some humorous effects with the following words that was not suitable to be printed, compared with the case when the expression the four-letter word, with the definite article the, bluntly and unambiguously indicates the one possible word, or the f-word.

Is this understanding correct?

Although this might be a no-brainer for native speakers, this kind of technique employed by a professional writer is difficult for non-natives to comprehend with certainty and confidence.

I deeply appreciate any explanation or suggestion.

"Greetings from Patrick of ABC company" or "Greetings by Patrick from at ABC company" [migrated]

Posted: 13 May 2021 06:55 AM PDT

For business needs, I need to connect to people on LinkedIn and send people a note to tell them who I am.

Should I say

  1. "Greetings from Patrick of ABC company"

  2. "Greetings by Patrick at ABC company" (I am not sure about the use of "at" here, but it was sent to me back by an Ozzie client)

  3. "Greetings from Patrick of ABC company"

Which one is correct?

Isn't "But my pay was not even quite enough for one person much less several." missing a comma?

Posted: 13 May 2021 05:46 AM PDT

But my pay was not even quite enough for one person much less several.

Isn't a comma missing here? Should it not be:

But my pay was not even quite enough for one person, much less several.

?

I've often seen native English/American speakers/writers, and often quite intelligent ones, make this "mistake", and thus I'm beginning to think that it is not a mistake at all. But it seems very wrong to me. It doesn't look right to omit a comma, and it suggests to me that the author is prone to making "comma splices" in other contexts, sort of "shifting the meaning" of the comma.

A meaning without suitable words

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:07 AM PDT

I wanted to add a poem to my book but I can't manage to convey my meaning in the right words. The first sentence was about bells that indicate _____. That was where my sentence end. The meaning that I want to express was something unpredictable happened but no one knows whether it is good or bad. I've been trying to find a word for this meaning on the internet and it doesn't give much help except for giving me Ambivalent and Agathokakological. I asked many people but they keep giving answers like Uncertain and doubtful, which did not help at all because I wasn't putting the 'feeling' words in the poem since the poem itself is hinting at the theme and mood.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, feel free to ask questions so I could clarify my question.

Edit: I think I'm looking for a phrase that isn't too long.

Where did the phrase "jump to conclusions" come from? [closed]

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:33 AM PDT

I've been looking for the origin of the phrase "jump to conclusions."

I found nothing more than this:

The term began to appear in the early 1700s in prints.

And how different is "leap to conclusions" from it?

And which one is more popular?

What's the meaning of "Ma" while a husband calls his wife?

Posted: 13 May 2021 04:46 AM PDT

I know "Ma" is shortened of Mother. Yesterday I saw a classic movie named "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Ford in 1940. in this movie the father of the family calls his wife "Ma" and vice-versa. I'm wondering what's behind this calling?

What is the non-funny equivalent of a spoof? Such as a dark, gritty, alternative re-telling of a story

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:56 AM PDT

I'm wondering if there is a word for a non-funny spoof/parody, as described in the title.

Without giving away any spoilers, Invincible (the TV series, haven't read the comics) seems very much like an alternative reality/mashup of classic super heros (the parallels are obvious, Superman, Gambit, Flash, Batman etc) but told in a very dark way.

Like a dark homage?

Sides of a chimney - Single word request

Posted: 13 May 2021 08:42 AM PDT

In this sentence, I'm describing the sides of an underground forge's chimney:

It was an underground cavern with a shoot leading up in the middle.

I would need to find a better substitute for shoot. I'm positive a word exists with the same or similar pronunciation, but I just can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet. I've been thinking about using chute, but that specifically describes a hole in the ground where you put things to transport them somewhere.

I'm looking for the word for the outside walls of the chimney, yes. But with the caveat that said chimney is underground and we cannot see the top of it.

I would accept having to rewrite the sentence if nobody has any suggestions.

enter image description here

[graphic from OP comment, Pinterest]

Is "go to the hospital" used even when referring to multiple hospitals? [AmE]

Posted: 13 May 2021 08:34 AM PDT

It's well known the British go to hospital while the Americans go to the hospital.

But I wonder Americans really use go to the hospital in the completely same way as Britons do with the zero article hospital.

I have come across the following sentence, a bit modified for removing distractions, from a New York Times article.

Police officers fired rubber bullets and stun grenades at citizens, sending hundreds of people to the hospital by the afternoon.

It's unlikely that all of the hundreds of people mentioned above were taken to a single hospital, I believe. This begs the question--whether Americans use the phrase to the hospital even when people go to or are sent to multiple hospitals.

In British English, the phrase to the hospital in the quoted sentence above should be rewritten as to hospital, with no information on which hospital or hospitals they were admitted to, much the way phrases such as to school and to church have no interest in the physical place when they mean abstractly the purpose they are designed for.

With the phrase to the hospital, do Americans recognize abstractly and not care about the physical place, so to the hospital is used even when multiple hospitals are involved?

I appreciate any suggestions or explanations.

She can't sing AND/ OR dance

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:54 AM PDT

  1. She can't sing or dance.
  2. She can't sing and dance.

I saw both sentences; I guess that they are whole negation and partial negation respectively. However, I am not sure which of the action verbs is negative in the second example.

Is "should" + 3rd person present correct? [closed]

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:24 AM PDT

My colleague frequently uses "should" + 3rd person present, e.g. "It should goes ..". Notifying him about that he replied he had a British teacher and this form is correct.

It was surprise to me as I thought the correct form is just the verb base form, e.g. "It should go ..". Asking him if it is correct also for negative sentence, e.g. "He should not smokes." he was not sure..

Could someone confirm it is correct and when it is used in this form?

Edit:

This question has been closed as off-topic. Why?

I was confronted with a person who mentioned a specific usage in a specific country. I googled it first, found this - it compares frequency of usages of phrases "credit should go to" vs "credit should goes to" as 17900 : 99. There might be 99 occurrences of a bad usage or there might exist some rare context when it is correct.

Does the question suit better to "English Language Learners"? I wouldn't say from the names of the communities but if the StackExchange thinks so, please feel free to move it there. In my opinion, downvoting and closing without explanation just shows disrespect to the urge to understand things..

Not enough of these objects was/were?

Posted: 13 May 2021 07:42 AM PDT

Is "Not enough of these objects were available" correct, or should it be "was available"? I think the former sounds correct, but if I omit "of these objects" then I tend towards "was".

Use of adjective after an object

Posted: 13 May 2021 09:07 AM PDT

Can i use an adjective after an object and verb? If yes, can i use participle adjectives or simple adjectives or both?

  1. He came running.
  2. He came wounded.
  3. He came happy.
  4. I saw the man sad.
  5. She lies smiling.
  6. I saw her wounded.
  7. He lies dead.

Which of these sentences are grammatically correct? Thanks in advance.

Would it be okay to use "would be" in if-clause?

Posted: 13 May 2021 04:08 AM PDT

Is it gramatically correct or not to include "would be" in the if-clause.

Your physician may recommend you to be evaluated if you would potentially be a candidate for this vaccine.

Any difference in nuance between “for easing restrictions” and “for easing of restrictions”?

Posted: 13 May 2021 08:03 AM PDT

These days, we often see news headlines like the below examples, and I wonder if there is any difference in nuance between "for easing restrictions" and "for easing of restrictions". Can anyone help me with this question, please.

Greek government unveils plan for easing restrictions. https://knews.kathimerini.com.cy/en/news/greek-government-unveils-plan-for-easing-restrictions

Koike unveils road map for easing of restrictions in Tokyo https://japantoday.com/category/national/Koike-unveils-road-map-for-easing-of-restrictions-in-Tokyo

How do I refer to the unmarried mother of my grandson?

Posted: 13 May 2021 10:24 AM PDT

My son had a child with his girlfriend. Since they're not married, how do I refer to her. Is daughter-in-law proper?

Can I replace "is" with comma in a sentence?

Posted: 13 May 2021 06:00 AM PDT

I want to write a short sentence as a headline. The sentence is:

"JAVA developer with excellent analytical skills is available for new challenges."

Can I replace "is" with comma in the above sentence? For example:

"JAVA developer with excellent analytical skills, available for new challenges."

Or could you suggest me any other way to write this sentence?

What's the best word for denoting "treat as a single item" in the specific context I describe?

Posted: 13 May 2021 05:01 AM PDT

Why I'm asking

@Xanne asks "Does this really have to do with the English language?" Yes. I seek an English language verb. If you, dear reader, find it confusing that the following mentions another language, please imagine this other language is Martian and I'm just trying to describe in English a thing that happens on Mars, but is known to also occur on Earth.

There is a particular non-English language (actually a computer programming language), where one can write the instructions:

Basket-One    =  list   loaf, cabbage, pineapple ;  Basket-Two    =  list   Basket-One ;  Basket-Three  =  item   Basket-One ;

The result of writing (and "computing") this that:

  • Basket-One contains three items;

  • So does Basket-Two;

  • Basket-Three contains one item, the item Basket-One.

According to this programming language's documentation explaining this feature, Basket-Three contains just one item because the term item in item Basket-One ('item' in this context is unambiguously a technical term) has the effect of "itemizing" Basket-One.

This usage of "itemizing" occurs in what I consider an English prose context (tutorial documentation describing the programming language feature). But it seems like it has the exact opposite meaning to the English usage I'm familiar with. It's not clear if "itemizing" in this context is being used as a technical term or a regular English term, but either way, the goal of this question is to find a replacement English language word that doesn't have the weird characteristic of potentially/actually meaning the exact opposite of the technical meaning.

What I've found

Consider the two dictionary.com definitions of "itemize":

1. list the individual units or parts of    2. list as an item or separate part

I'm thinking that, assuming the verb's object is given in a singular form:

  • Definition #1 is about immediately individually listing the items within the item that's the object of the verb.

  • Definition #2 is about immediately listing only one item, the singular item that's the object off the verb.

Main Question

1. What's the best word for denoting "treat as a single item" in the specific context I describe?

To help clarify what I'm asking, I'll present some more questions. (If someone has time, I'd appreciate answers to some/all of these more detailed questions, but they are subsidiary to my formal question.)

  • Do most native English speakers recognize two (or more) meanings for "itemize"? Is one meaning dominant and the other(s) rare? What about non-native speakers?

  • Do you think I'm right about the meaning of the second dictionary.com definition? If not, what is the meaning of the second definition?

  • Are there yet more definitions of "itemize" beyond the two that dictionary.com lists?

  • Am I right that the meaning of dictionary.com's second definition emerged from usage of "itemize" in instructions on US (or UK?) tax forms?

  • Does the second definition always imply that the first definition also applies to the composite object, just elsewhere than the immediate listing context?

Non-exhaustive candidate list

Assuming that English definitions of "itemize" contradict the usage I've covered in Why I'm asking, what do you think that better single word might best be:

  • itemify

  • itemate

  • item

  • individualize

  • singlify (a neologism I just made up)

  • scalarize

  • some-other-word?

"To emphasize the need to treat a potentially composite thing as a single item, when a common thing would be to treat that composite thing as the list of constituent items that comprise it, ________ it".

Thank you in advance for any and all answers or comments. :)

A word for: a person you bounce ideas off of

Posted: 13 May 2021 08:42 AM PDT

Or I should say in this forum: Off of whom one bounces ideas. Weaker than a co-author or collaborator. Not a confidant (no element of privacy or secrecy). Friend is too broad. Suggestions?

What is the difference between "in the playground" and "on the playground"

Posted: 13 May 2021 04:43 AM PDT

  1. He is playing in the playground.

  2. He is playing on the playground.

Can you tell me the difference between the two expression above?

What is the word for a rapt state induced by a yearning for the unattainable?

Posted: 13 May 2021 05:42 AM PDT

I cannot remember the English word for a known meaning. The meaning of the forgotten word from the dictionary is a "a rapt state induced by a yearning for the unattainable".
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)