Sunday, August 8, 2021

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

What is the difference between a predicate nominative/predicate adjectives and a subject complement?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:55 AM PDT

For example, the sentence "John was a policeman" or "Ben was angry." Both describe the subject, so I'd call them subject complements. But they could also be a predicate nominative and a predicate adjective.

Is it acceptable to omit the possessive apostrophe in practice?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:39 AM PDT

Most textbooks for foreign language learners say that "the dentists' opinion" is correct but "the dentists opinion" is wrong. But recently I came across these sentences:

The millionaires wealth does not cause the paupers poverty.

The intellectuals and or the societies social status does not cause the social status that anyone else possesses.

These are written by a Yale law professor in a serious argument in his book, so I guess he intended without the apostrophes. Nonetheless, is omitting the apostrophes generally accepted grammatical constructs? If yes, when can one use it and when can one not?

A word that defines when you have to consider multiple factors when making decisions

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 08:52 AM PDT

Say you have a situation where you are trying to mitigate multiple factors from competing sides, but when you make decisions you have to consider both sides, you can't just consider one side as it may have a worse outcome on the other side.

So for example, say you were stuck on a deserted island and if you didn't leave you would starve to death - there was one small rickety looking boat available.

Simply you could say, let's get in the boat and leave, fixed? No, because you are not considering other factors on if the boat is safe, is it going to burst a leak and you're going to drown? What if the ocean gets rough and you get chucked out of the boat?

So I'm looking for a word that explains you have to consider both sides, you can't just consider one of them, as the situation isn't _______.

Middlemarch, meaning of a sentence in Chapter 2

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 07:58 AM PDT

The following are the last two paragraphs of the second chapters of Eliot's Middlemarch:

He was not in the least jealous of the interest with which Dorothea had looked up at Mr. Casaubon: it never occurred to him that a girl to whom he was meditating an offer of marriage could care for a dried bookworm towards fifty, except, indeed, in a religious sort of way, as for a clergyman of some distinction.

However, since Miss Brooke had become engaged in a conversation with Mr. Casaubon about the Vaudois clergy, Sir James betook himself to Celia, and talked to her about her sister; spoke of a house in town, and asked whether Miss Brooke disliked London. Away from her sister, Celia talked quite easily, and Sir James said to himself that the second Miss Brooke was certainly very agreeable as well as pretty, though not, as some people pretended, more clever and sensible than the elder sister. He felt that he had chosen the one who was in all respects the superior; and a man naturally likes to look forward to having the best. He would be the very Mawworm of bachelors who pretended not to expect it.

According to OED Mawworm is "a hypocritical pretender to sanctity". I am not sure to whom the marked words "he" and "who" refer. Do they refer to them "man" of the previous sentence? In this case the meaning would be: A man would be hypocritical if he pretended not to expect his choice to be the superior one.

What is the adjective form of the word "misuse"? [closed]

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:55 AM PDT

We have the word abuse and the adjective form is abusive. What is the adjective form of the word misuse? Misusive? If you think this is not correct, do you have any suggestions, or do you know any synonyms? Thank you

The difference between Clausal Apposition and Content Clauses

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 05:04 AM PDT

In Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide (Ronald Carter, Michael McCarthy - p. 576) they provide this example for showing the possibility of using a finite clause as apposition to a noun phrase:

enter image description here

But in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum - p. 1358), under the title of Content clauses, they provide the following example:

[24] i : The excuse he gave – that the train had been late – seemed to satisfy the boss.

Under the above mentioned example, they make a distinction between a Content clause and an apposition:

enter image description here

Is there really a difference between the examples provided in each book or is it just matter of using a different terminology/framework?

Merriam-Webster's 'who/whom' dilemma

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 07:21 AM PDT

Please note I don't need theory on who/whom usage. I need to understand the dictionary's explanation.

I found the following article on merriam-webster.com recently:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whom

It says:

though now often considered stilted especially as an interrogative and especially in oral use —occasionally used as predicate nominative with a copulative verb or as subject of a verb especially in the vicinity of a preposition or a verb of which it might mistakenly be considered the object

Is the given explanation correct? I know you can only use whom as an object! But they say it's occasionally used in a way we might mistakenly consider it as the object. They also provide us with the following example sentence:

people … whom you never thought would sympathize — Shea Murphy

It means 'I never thought I would sympathize with these people.' Is that right?

But if we would say: 'people … who you never thought would sympathize,' it would mean 'I never thought these people would sympathize with anyone.' Am I correct?

Then, based on the explanation, if whom is used as the subject, then in fact we have to use who instead of whom. But occasionally it happens that people use whom when we have to use who. How do I know the exact meaning of this sentence then (based on Merriam-Webster's explanation)? Should I contact Shea Murphy to provide me with a clarification or what?

If clause in questions [closed]

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 02:26 AM PDT

Which sentence is more accurate?

  1. If you want I can give it to you.
  2. If you want I will give it to you.

Usage of "never mind" [closed]

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 12:14 AM PDT

I am curious about the different meanings of "never mind". I know many people use this phrase to mean "don't worry" or "doesn't matter", but I feel like to me (I am from the US), I really can only accept the meaning that you request something from someone but then change your mind about it.

A few weeks ago, I was riding the bus on the way to meet my friend. I was very late, and apologized profusely. He responded with "never mind" (he is a non-native speaker). I almost got off the bus and headed back home, because I thought he was angry and no longer wanted to meet me. But then I realized he just meant "no worries".

Is this just my strange idiolect and cluelessness kicking in, or are there some Americans who only accept the "take back a request" meaning of 'never mind'. I am living abroad, and I definitely think my English ability is deteriorating!

The order and structure of "it makes possible" in this sentence [migrated]

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 01:56 AM PDT

I was baffled by this sentence

Such a degree of preparedness, and the rapid deployment of doses it would make possible, could save many lives.

I have no idea of what role "it would make possible" plays in the sentence. Is there inversion involved in the sentence?

Grammar of the sentence "everything is fun and games ..."

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 09:37 PM PDT

I am reading a novel on AO3 and the title of one novel is "everything is fun and games until someone loses an eye..."

Ignore the seemingly terrified "someone loses an eye", I would like to ask is the grammar of "everything is fun and games" correct? Can we say "something be + singular and plural"? If it's grammatically correct, should be verb here be "is" or "are" in this situation?

Some more examples are appreciated!

Thanks.

Both their three cars

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 03:34 PM PDT

Both indicates that the action or state denoted by the verb applies individually to each of two entities. Both books weigh more than five pounds means that each weighs more than five by itself, not that the two books weighed together come to more than five.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=both

Is both their three cars ambiguous with the meaning "each owns three cars, six cars in total"?

What about the three cars of both('s?) or both's three cars?

Should this sentence have a comma?

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 02:48 PM PDT

I'm really unsure how this type of sentence is categorised. My inclination is to replace the comma with 'that'. It certainly feels and looks like a comma splice to me.

  • The pigs are so confident in their control, they feel as if they don't need to justify their actions.

"An" in Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 03:57 AM PDT

In Act 1, Scene 1, Katherine says to Bianca,

A pretty peat! It is best / Put finger in the eye, an she knew why".

I understand "Put finger in the eye" means she is fake crying for sympathy, but what does "an she knew why" mean?

I'm guessing that "an," somehow means "if," since this makes the most sense.

Is the word "essentially" an adjective in phrase "essentially nonlinear phenomena"?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:06 AM PDT

I need help. the word "essentially" seems to be an adjective in the phrase "essentially nonlinear phenomena". Is it? but "essentially" could only be an adverb! I'm confused and need help. Thanks a lot.

Singular or plural noun after "their" when subject is "those" (as in "those who were") Details follow

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 07:48 AM PDT

I'm helping a nephew edit a paper and while he says it isn't essential that it be grammatically perfect...😲 well. I don't know have to explain. You are my people. So without further ado, which option is correct:

A. This means that those who were indoctrinated at a young age may be hesitant to discuss their background.

B. This means that those who were indoctrinated at a young age may be hesitant to discuss their backgrounds.

I know the entire structure is awkward, and has to GO. But I became fixated on this issue, and would love the answer--more for me than for him at this point. Ha! Thank you in advance.

Sow the seeds of interests [closed]

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 03:07 PM PDT

Here's a sentence I came up with when I was working on an essay: "This kind of ignorance sowed the seeds of interests in XYZ culture among [a certain group of people] around that time. "

What I try to say here is that there was a growing interest in a certain culture around that time when people didn't know much about it.

Does it look natural to you? Thanks!

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows doth

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 07:20 AM PDT

The following is taken from the prologue of Romeo and Juliet. I'd like to know why the plural noun overthrows takes the third-person singular auxiliary doth.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life,
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Doth with their death bury their parents' strife.

Meaning of "a" in the idiom "to a man"

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 08:04 AM PDT

OED reads as follows,

TO: PREPOSITION

IV Followed by a word or phrase expressing a limit in extent, amount, or degree.

  1. Indicating a limit or point attained in degree or amount, or in division or analysis, and thus expressing degree of completeness or exactitude: As far as; to the point of; down to (an ultimate element or item), as in to a hair (hair n. 8 c), to the last man; to a man (including every man, without exception); within (a limit of variation or error), as to an inch, to a day.

Yet, I do not know what the "a" exactly means ("one" as in a countdown?).

Unfortunately the punctuation makes it really difficult.

According to Webster's, unlike to a man or to a nicety, neither to a day or to an inch are idioms.

Use of superscript 'x'(?) as an abbreviation for 'yards'

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:40 AM PDT

I'm currently working with some handwritten notes that look like they could be quite old, or at least written by somebody who grew up a little bit earlier than I did. I don't really know when they were written, but judging by the style of handwriting, I feel like they could be a few decades old. They were almost certainly written by a British person.

Anyway, a few times in these notes, I find what I'm certain is a superscript letter 'x' used as an abbreviation for 'yards'. It is most certainly an abbreviation for yards, because I happen to have the printed notice that my writer was making notes on and the distance in the original is in yards.

I'm just interested why a superscript 'x' should be used as an abbreviation for 'yards', how common it was, and when (if ever) it fell out of regular use. Just because I'm seeing it for the first time, doesn't mean it's fallen completely out of use!

enter image description here

Other examples:

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Comparisons with this writer's 'y':

enter image description here

Why don't we say "We're going eating"?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 09:09 AM PDT

I found an interesting observation about the English language in this answer post:

Try explaining to a Finn sometime [...] why We're going shopping is OK in English, while *We're going eating isn't[.]

I'm an American native speaker, and although I agree that "We're going eating" isn't acceptable, I have no idea why!

(The correct sentence is "We're going out to eat.")

So why is "We're going eating" unacceptable, while many similar sentences (we're going shopping, we're going skiing) are?

Are there any patterns in the language that would allow an English student to predict that "We're going eating" is not an acceptable sentence, without already knowing beforehand?

What do you call a contraption for holding newspapers?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 06:31 AM PDT

In Austria, there is newspaper holder that looks like this:

Newspaper holder

This allows you to hold newspapers in a more convenient way:

newspaper holding apparatus

Is there a better word for this device in American English than newspaper holder?

Sample sentence:

In the library, the newspapers were attached to newspaper _______ which made you feel like in a café.

"Childish", "puerile" and "juvenile" which is more derogative?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 07:50 AM PDT

In order to scorn someone's behaviour, excuse etc., we can define it as childish or puerile, juvenile. In my register, they are graded down in that order. Is it right, or is there any difference in meaning or connotation?

Eg.,

"That was a rather childish/ puerile excuse."

Do we say "in" or "at" one's approach?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 05:00 AM PDT

The specific sentence is:

"Nasreddin Hodja is simple at/in his approach."

Meaning that the way he thinks on a specific subject is simple and practical.

What is the idiom/proverb for "You have to fend for yourself, no one is going to come for our rescue"?

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 03:02 AM PDT

What is the idiom/proverb for

"You have to fend for yourself, no one is going to come for our rescue"?

Difference between eloquent and articulate

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 02:04 PM PDT

Is there an intended difference between the words "eloquent" and "articulate," or are they simply two synonymous adjectives?

When I use the adjective "eloquent" I most often think of flowery, decorated, or crafted speaking. The individual puts effort into making their speaking more colorful or artistic. Whether they do this consciously or unconsciously is not relevant for my usage.

However, when I use the adjective "articulate" I think of someone who simply has a strong understanding and usage of a language. They are clear and easy to understand. Their words are proper and correct, but not necessarily the most flowing or "fun" to read or listen to.

So one can be articulate but not eloquent, in my opinion. I suppose that one can also be eloquent but not truly articulate, but I feel this is very rare for having the ability to craft a sentence for a certain effect more-or-less requires a fairly strong grasp of the intended language.

Is this particular variance in usage a common thing among English speakers, or am I just weird?

"Cancellation", "Canceled", "Canceling" — US usage

Posted: 08 Aug 2021 03:02 AM PDT

I'm trying to figure out if there is a specific rule behind the word "cancel" that would cause "cancellation" to have two L's, but "canceled" and "canceling" to have only one (in the US).

I understand the rules are very loose when it comes to double L's in English, and I have read several posts on here talking about "canceled" and "canceling" (vs "cancelled" and "cancelling"), but my specific question is more about the spelling of "cancellation".

  • US English Oxford Dictionary - they do NOT mention cancelation with one "L"
  • Meriam Webster - they do seem to have cancelation listed with one "L"
  • Microsoft Word marks "cancelation" as an invalid word
  • Same with the spell checker in Firefox

So my question is: is there a reason or rule why in US English, "cancellation" seems to have two L's (to most dictionaries), while "canceled" and "canceling" does not?

"In orbit" vs. "on orbit"

Posted: 07 Aug 2021 02:44 PM PDT

When should one use something like "conducting experiments in orbit" vs. "conducting experiments on orbit"?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)