Friday, August 6, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Determining the anchor (reference) of a nonrestrictive apposition

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 10:02 AM PDT

The following piece is from Critical Reading Workbook for the SAT 12th Edition (page 23):

The word tephra, from the Greek word meaning ash, has come into use among geologists to describe the assortment of fragments, ranging from blocks of material to dust, that is ejected into the air during a volcanic eruption.

I think it is safe to assume that the bold section is a nonrestrictive apposition (please correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case then what is its reference? (the noun that it is renaming)

Can I drop to be verb in passive voice in these cases? Is it correct, what is the grammatical name of this phenomenon? [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 09:50 AM PDT

Entries successfully merged, pull request successfully merged?

Linguistic Term for "Shame if something happened to it" type phrases

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 09:48 AM PDT

The phrase "you've got a nice [noun] here. Shame if something happened to it" has been a trope for years. It represents a type of communication where what the speaker intends to communicate is not actually what they say.

Is there a linguistic term for this? Subtext doesn't seem to fit because that implies that it is a secondary meaning, rather than the primary intended meaning.

What is the difference between 'camera pans to' and 'camera pans on'? [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 05:29 AM PDT

Here are two examples where on and to are used with 'camera pans.'

The camera pans on German villagers, holding their noses with a handkerchief, as they are forced to walk through the camps, single file, and see what their regime had done.
(Huffington Post)

Between games, the camera pans to the spectators.
(The Guardian)

What is the difference between 'camera pans to' and 'camera pans on'?

What is the grammatical explanation for an 'It looks like ...' clause? (dummy subjects)

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 08:35 AM PDT

Recently, I have been trying to understand the nuances of language to turn myself into a better writer. This has led me to the 'dummy subject' or 'dummy pronoun.' I am clear on the function of 'there,' but 'it' has proven to be more confusing.

I am aware of this subject being used to talk about time, weather, and distance. I am also aware of its use in expletives (changing the position of the subject). However, I can't seem to grasp this sentence construction: 'It looks like ....' An example of what I mean is 'It looks like we've won' or 'It looks like they've gone home.'

To me, the use of 'It' at the beginning of the sentence seems to be a dummy pronoun, as I can't figure out what else it could refer to. Does anyone know the exact grammatical explanation for this?

Is there a word for the human tendency to be religious?

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 07:52 AM PDT

I am looking for a word that captures the Voltaire quote "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

There is the id, ego, and superego from Freud to describe the three tendencies in humans for different behaviors.

Then there is Plato with his reason, spirit, and appetite.

But is there a word that describes the human tendency towards religions and the supernatural.

I can only find phrases such as, need for self-maintenance ("How do we survive as individuals and as a species?") and self-transcendence ("How do we continue to evolve and change ourselves as people?")

What does "outlier organization" mean? [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 08:55 AM PDT

What does "outlier organization" mean in "XXX is an outlier organization in the world of turning science fiction into reality."?

Can I say restive to mean restful? [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 12:22 AM PDT

They seem to have the same meaning while in fact, they dont

Understanding 'rather do we'

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 11:42 PM PDT

I came across a peculiar sentence structure today:

Rather do we do A; but B.

I think this is an archaic grammatica structure. What is the meaning of the above structure?

The full phrase is given below:

[We must not evade darkness.] Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky ways—is nothing.

(I also don't understand how the italicized part fits into the sentence. Any help will be greatly appreciated!)

Have vs had (perfect continuous tense) [closed]

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 10:56 PM PDT

Which one is more accurate ?

  1. I've been looking for my friend until I found her a couple of days ago .
  2. I'd been looking for my friend until I found her a couple of days ago .

First one sounds a bit inaccurate to me considering that it's been a couple of days since the friend was found , but I have still seen it being used so many times . So I'm a little confused regarding which helping verb should be used in such sentences . Maybe it has something to do with the time period .

A quotation by an anthropologist [closed]

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 08:42 PM PDT

Please, explain what the following quotation mean,

" The western conception of the person as a bounded unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgement, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background, is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world's cultures."

I do not understand starting from, "and action organized into....."

What is be in future continuous [closed]

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 08:38 PM PDT

What is be in future continuous tense? For example:-

She will be reading a book. In this sentence what is be main verb or helping verb?

What is the distinction between verbs like "to regard/concern" and prepositions like "regarding", "concerning", "about"?

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 06:55 PM PDT

"regard", "concern", "refer" are stative verbs that express the state of being related or connected to something.

Why is it that words like "regarding" and "concerning" are not considered verbs but prepositions. Are these prepositions essentially just irregular verb forms?

What's different between can't and mustn't? [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 10:19 AM PDT

In the sentence "Joe had two bowls of soup. He () be hungry now.", What word is suitable for the blank? can't? or mustn't? or both?

You can "allocate the slot S for X", but what's a verb V that will work in a sentence such as "Please V X into the slot S"?

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 10:33 PM PDT

In "Please V X into the slot S", the word order is such that

  • V immediately precedes S, and
  • the preposition into is then used.

That's what I need. Clearly you can put or insert X into slot S. But I am after a verb which conveys a similar sense to allocate, connoting that you have arranged or earmarked or allocated a special slot into which you then deposit the item X.

Is there a name for verbs that can be both active and passive, like "play music" [closed]

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 04:43 AM PDT

The phrase "play music" can mean both performing on an instrument and pushing a button on a playback device (listening to music). This misleads people about actions, and I can't think of other verbs that work this way. The closest I know of is: "My favorite thing to make for dinner is reservations." But 'make' is not very specific.

Yes, the verb to be is used in myriad ways, but some languages get along fine without it. Similarly with take, go, and so on. But specific verbs that clearly refer to particular actions ought to be unambiguous if we want to communicate and not think in a muddle. I believe a famous style guide said that.

Is there a name for the dual use of the verb 'play' like this? Other examples would interest.

What is the meaning of (half a notion for something)? [migrated]

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 11:54 PM PDT

What is the meaning of (half a notion for ..) in this context?

What is left is attachment to yourself: a recognition of worth and the wish that it be preserved. Thus, half a notion for approaching middle age. Can you separate attachment from concern, grieving your own mortality in advance, giving up the need to persist forever, while saving the desire for a better life?

Thank you,

Word for "object of malignant joy"

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 05:33 AM PDT

I would need a literary synonym of toy, but which would also have the nuance of object of malignant joy. I would like to use it in the context of someone becoming the toy (?) of some evil powers because of lack of strength of character.

I considered plaything and toy, but they are too modern, and besides, they do not have the intrinsic nuance of malignant joy.

I also considered laughingstock and derision which, although literary and even slightly antiquated, are too abstract. I also considered scorn which I like very much, but still lacks the nuance of the man's inability to defend himself. I wish to express that these forces play with such a person, as a cat plays with its prey before devouring it. Is there such a word in English?

He gave himself over to riotous living and became the __________ of demons.

I wouldn't mind an archaic word, but it needs to be still understandable today.

He had his ears bored

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 09:19 PM PDT

I'm reading The Underground Railroad by Coleson Whitehead. Early in the first chapter he writes:

"Her last husband had his ears bored for stealing honey. The wounds gave up pus until he wasted away."

What does it mean that he had his ears bored?

What does "not XXX in the sense that YYY does not ZZZ" mean?

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 03:12 AM PDT

This could be a weird example, but consider the following statement:
"She is not cute in the sense of being a cat."
Which of the following should this sentence be understood as?
"She is not (cute in the sense of being a cat)." i.e. She is cute, and moreover, not just cute being any random cat--indicating that she stands out to be cute even among her kitty counterparts. In this case, "in the sense of" is only modifying "cute" but not the "NOT".
OR
"She is (not cute) (in the sense of being a cat)." i.e. As a cat, she is NOT cute. Shame on her.

For instance, I see a professor saying this in his handout:
"In fact, the model is not identified in the sense that data cannot distinguish between model A and B."
In this case he is clearly using "in the sense that" as a "because" clause explaining how this model is "NOT identified".
The fact that there's another "not" in the subordinate clause just made this sentence even more confusing.
This kind of sentences can really take me a while to understand, which makes me wonder if that's my fault as a non-native speaker or if there actually exists ambiguity to some extent.

Is this a common way to use "in the sense of/that" to modify the entire negative independent clause?

Using 'IT' with comma

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 07:02 PM PDT

I intend that the word 'it' refers to the personality in the sentence below. I would like to know if it is properly placed.

Since the innumerable mental programs drive the personality, it is mostly unconscious.

Thanks

More of ...than

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 10:08 PM PDT

In the early 1950's, historians who studied preindustrial Europe (which we may define here as Europe in the period from roughly 1300 to 1800) began, for the first time in large numbers, to investigate more of the preindustrial European population than the 2 or 3 percent who comprised the political and social elite：the kings，generals, judges, nobles, bishops, and local magnates who had hitherto usually filled history books.

In the sentence above, what I do not understand is the part "to investigate more of the preindustrial European population than the 2 or 3 percent who comprised the political and social elite"; specifically, how to comprehend the "more of... than"?

Is there a word that could mean both serious and humorous?

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 04:35 AM PDT

I'm creating a project on character traits, and the person that I'm writing about is funny yet serious. I didn't know if there was a word for that, so I'm asking for help.

Analyzing 'genitive/accusative + V-ing phrase (gerund-participle phrase)' as different constructions

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 03:03 AM PDT

(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].

(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].

(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].

(4) He didn't bother [giving me a copy].

Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:

If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only the bracketed portion in (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?

This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.

Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).

So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.

PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH

CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):

The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.

Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.

SUGGESTED APPROACH

What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?

In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.

Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".

This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).

More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).

QUESTION

I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.

what you call a person living in a safe house

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 07:08 AM PDT

What would you call the person that lives in a safe house, to save them from a much worse situation, say a person seeking freedom, escaping violence. The text I am translating refers to the African Americans who were offered a place in Underground Railroad safe houses during the period of slavery in the US.

I'm looking for a generic word (not the official "freedom seekers" or similar) - something that has to do with them being "protected" (a synonym for "protectee") The sample sentence is:

The comforter on the bed has star and moon patterns... Mother didn't make it herself... it was a gift from one of her poor protectees when we arrived here. It was a gift from Mrs Dillard, as thanks for the help she'd received.

Is there something wrong with using "said (that)" in this sentence?

Posted: 05 Aug 2021 09:04 PM PDT

Quick context, work as a translator.

I had a short blurb I had to translate where I basically rendered it as:

"Bob spoke about how Countryland was one of the countries that suffered greatly from the Big Bad Thing, and that he wanted to hold a photograph exhibition in Hereland."

(Names and places changed for privacy/company policy reasons)

Is there anything wrong with making it "said that Countryland..." Is it ungrammatical? If so, what would be the correct word(s) to use?

My proof reader initially changed "spoke about how" to "told that" which was ungrammatical, so I told her that, to which she responded "change it to 'said or said that' then," which I felt was wrong but could not explain why.

All the stuff I came across online explained that:

-Say is when you pronounce words, express a thought/opinion, for stating a fact, affirming something, declaring something, etc. and is also a one-way sort of action, i.e. doesn't necessarily imply there's more than one person in the situation at hand. It is also doesn't take a person as its object, not without some modifying/adding extra words.

-Tell is for giving information to somebody through speaking or writing and needs a person after it as the object. Unlike Say, it is a "two-way" sort of action, where it implies the existence of two parties conversing with each other.

-Speak is for languages and for general conversation, no specific details usually expressed.

-Talk is more or less the same as speak, but more informal.

(in)direct question after the copula

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 04:02 AM PDT

I'm wondering which of the following options is correct in writing:

  1. The question is how do we improve our French.
  2. The question is, how do we improve our French?
  3. The question is: How do we improve our French?
  4. The question is how we can improve our French.

What does it mean to "feel Humpty"?

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 06:20 AM PDT

I was reading a book written in the UK and a character stated that speaking to her sister made her "feel Humpty". I am not sure what she was feeling, as the rest of the dialogue gave no clue. Can anyone help clarify this?

Clause in sentence

Posted: 06 Aug 2021 08:43 AM PDT

John found it surprising that Wayne played the tuba.

That Wayne played the tuba is the clause, but what kind is it? I am completely stuck on this and can't figure it out.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)