Monday, July 25, 2022

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

I remember reading sometime back the the kk now kkk was an organization 2 protect the anglo blood line now i cant find that anywhere who is tampering [closed]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 11:06 AM PDT

I thought the kkk was 2 protect the Anglo bloodline read that in an article sometime back

Using passive voise

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 11:06 AM PDT

Using passive verb in this sentence:

The injured man couldn't walk and had to .....

The correct ending of the sentence according to the textbook is "be carried"

That's the passive infinitive

But why that's don't it end as "was being carried"?

Because the action started in the past and man couldn't walk while he was injured, that action also finished in the past

Term for an adjective that is part of a name

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 10:16 AM PDT

What is or is there a term for an adjective that is part of a name? For example Big John, Grand Canyon - are Big, Grand adjectives, just part of the name, or something else?

costumer engagement [closed]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:58 AM PDT

I have encountered a few instances of

"costumer engagement" instead of "customer engagement"

grammar error. Also met a few people that were convinced that the first form is correct. Searching in Google its easy to find some documents with the wrong form, I found some on LinkedIn also.

I am wondering: maybe this could be right on some occasions?

thanks

How to properly read sentences of the type: "a and b that c" [migrated]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 10:00 AM PDT

There are a couple of examples of these sentences, but the main question is, whether to read this as:

  • a and [b that c]
    or
  • [a and b] that c

An example would be:

The grass and roses that are red.

Would this mean the grass is also red, or is this sentence just poorly written?

"Doctors often work very long hours": intransitive verb followed by a noun?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:43 AM PDT

I spotted something iffy in "work".

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries has

A1: [intransitive]

  • noun Doctors often work very long hours.

Oxford English Dictionary has

b. intransitive. With adverb or noun phrase denoting the length of time or pattern of work.

1967 Jrnl. Pediatrics 70 642/1 He had a butcher shop and worked long hours.

We also say "work night shifts".

I thought an intransitive verb cannot be followed by a noun. Otherwise it's called a transitive verb.

When "work" has the intransitive meaning, why can a noun follow? Why don't the dictionaries just say it's transitive?

Some references will be awesome.

Encompassing term for Turkish, American, Canadian, Mexican, Polish, etc

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:04 AM PDT

Is there a word/term that relates to those? Usage examples of the words in the title:

  • Turkish cuisine
  • American passport
  • Canadian insignia
  • Mexican beadwork
  • Polish calculator

Use of this mystery word/term in a sentence:

Is it necessary to include ____s, like American and Canadian, in aeroplane model names if they're all manufactured similarly?

Thanks!

A word for unacustomedness / dishabitude?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 07:28 AM PDT

I'm looking for a contrary to the word habitude. I found dishabitude which has a very specific meaning in psychology literature, so it applies only to psychology jargon and not to everyday speech.

Is there a one-word term to express the general concept of "being unaccustomed to"?

What should you answer when someone asks "Who is calling, please?" [closed]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 02:21 AM PDT

So I heard it's wrong to respond to that answer with, "I'm John Doe." You'd rather respond with "It's John Doe."

Therefore, why is saying "I'm John Doe" not grammatically correct in this situation?

What does “it” refer to in this song by Kengiston?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 04:34 AM PDT

To what does 'it' refer in Part of Me by Kensington? What is "a part of me"?

It is a part of me
And it breaks my heart to see
I was a part of you
When no one else could be

"Inept" Vs. "Inapt"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:17 AM PDT

I was writing a complaint letter and I wrote a line

He is inept in his profession.

Someone corrected me and said it should be inapt and not inept.

A google search revealed that both the words inept and inapt could be relevant in such a sentence. But I think I didn't completely understand the difference between the two. Can anyone explain the difference between them? Maybe through an example?

Edit:
By saying "He is inept in his profession", my intention was to make my sentence sounds like: He is not very good in his profession, or is unable to do his work properly or is not well versed.

The opposite of 'not lift a finger'

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 05:57 AM PDT

All dictionaries give examples with this expression in the negative:

  • He just watches TV and never lifts a finger to help with the dishes.(Cambridge)
  • He never lifted a finger to get Jimmy released from prison. (OxfordL)

and so on.

What I need is an expression that would mean the opposite. The sentence I need it for sounds something like this:

You will never be abandoned in this community. You only need to ________ [expression which would mean something like lift/move a finger] a little bit.

What I mean to say is that one only needs to contribute the minimum to receive support, the slightest effort. However, I would prefer if the expression would contain the image of a movement. Does moving one's finger imply slight effort in English?

When I looked at antonyms of the expression not lift a finger I found expressions that are too strong for what I need:

  • break your neck
  • Jump through hoops
  • put one's back into it

All these involve movement and/or parts of the body, but imply great effort. Is there any expression or phrase that would express the minimum effort needed as a contribution that would lead to receiving support?

On verb/subject agreement in an inverted sentence

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:42 AM PDT

I would like to know general grammatical rules on verb-subject agreement in inverted sentences like the following one:

At stake is much more than just the fortunes of the president.

Although much more can be considered singular, the fortunes of the president is plural.

On balance, the subject much more than just the fortunes of the president does not seem to agree with the singular verb is, does it? Or, is the subject much more than just the fortunes of the president singular?

Anyway, I guess the proximity of much more to the verb has made it the singular is.

Could you please tell me the grammatical rationale behind the sentence as well as general rules of thumb in similar ones?

Single word to describe "something that should have been done at the beginning"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 04:37 AM PDT

I am looking for a single word to describe something that should have been done from the beginning to describe the highlighted situation below:

Accessibility remediation after the fact is harder. Accessibility should be considered from the start as part of the design.

I know the following is not what I want, but I would like to have a sentence similar to: "Accessibility should be a first-principles consideration."

the accident happened a mile west of Bowes (Is 'west' an adverb?)

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:40 AM PDT

The Lexico Oxford Dictionary defines a use of 'west' as an adverb:

To or towards the west.

he faced west and watched the sunset

the accident happened a mile west of Bowes

I can easily understand the west in the first example is an adverb, but I have a hard time understanding or explaining to others how the one in the second is also an adverb.

Is west in the second example really an adverb? If so, how can you prove that it is?

What are AWAY and APART modifying here?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:40 AM PDT

I wanted to ask a question about the adverbs away and apart.

  • The villages are miles apart.

  • The exam is only two weeks away.

  • It is three days apart.

  • It is five kilometers away/apart.

Away and apart are supposed to be adverbs right? So they must be modifying either adjectives, adverbs, or verbs -- right?

What do they modify in these examples?

FIrst example, miles apart: does apart modify miles (which is a noun)?

Same thing goes for away, like two weeks away. Two weeks is a noun.

Can "under" and "within" mean the same in a quantified context?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:41 AM PDT

We use "under" for the measurement of time and weight, like this:

The egg was boiled under 12 minutes.

The bag was just under 10 kilos, so I was able to bring it on the plane. [from here]

In the sentences quoted above, I think that "within" can also be used in place of "under", as they both imply the same meaning of incomplete time or weight:

The egg was boiled within 12 minutes.

The bag was just within 10 kilos, so I was able to bring it on the plane.

So, can we use under and within to mean the same in such context? And is it appropriate to use them interchangeably?

Similar adjectives to "worth"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:38 AM PDT

This laptop is worth $140.

Here worth does not need a following preposition. However, when I say, for example:

I am curious about his motivation behind his decision.

The word curious is an adjective and I have to have a preposition about afterwards. My question is :

Are there similar adjectives to worth in this respect?

Sanitarium vs. Sanatorium

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:31 AM PDT

Is there a difference between sanitarium and sanatorium? A search over the net brings some pages which say that there's not much difference. For example, this article says there is one difference but it does not seem like a reasonable difference to me. So, is there really a difference between the two and which one is used in the modern world?

"5 weeks pregnant" or "5 week pregnancy?"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:43 AM PDT

From my understanding both "5 weeks pregnant" and "5 week pregnancy" are grammatically correct but I don't know when to use one instead of the other and which one sounds more natural for native speakers.

For example: I would say "She is 5 weeks pregnant" but not "she is 5 week pregnancy." The first one just sounds right to me but I don't know any grammatical rules behind it.

Is 20 dollars here a direct object or a predicate complement? 'This book cost me 20 dollars.'

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:38 AM PDT

In this sentence:

This book cost me 20 dollars.

Is 20 dollars a direct object or a predicative complement?

Meaning of the phrase "it is worth noting that" [closed]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 06:31 AM PDT

I'm a little bit confused with the following phrase. I was reading an article about concurrency in Java and there was a sentence saying:

It is worth noting that both unlockRead() and unlockWrite() calls notifyAll() rather than notify().

This phrase seemed quite strange to me. What does it mean?

Subject–verb agreement not clear in "Is two bars OK?"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:39 AM PDT

Is the following correct?

Can I get some chocolate for myself? Yes, you can but not much.
Is two bars OK?

Is there any rule to explain the sentence above?

The dialogue's taken from Grammar Textbook Round-Up Level #3.

Are the expressions: "You needn't" and "You don't need to" different in meaning? [duplicate]

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 12:33 AM PDT

While doing some research on a comment I had read on ELL, I read the following excerpt from a website called e.grammar

You needn't listen to him. (You don't have to listen to him.) x You don't need to listen to him. (There is no need to listen.) These two sentences are different in the form and meaning, too.

After reflecting, I started interpreting the two sentences like this:

  1. "You needn't listen to him" = It is unnecessary to listen to that man. If you want to listen that is your choice, but it's not important.

  2. "You don't need to listen to him" = It is not necessary to listen to that man. If you do you will only be wasting your time.

Is the second sentence more forceful, perhaps precluding the possibility of choice? Or is my mind playing tricks on me and in reality the two phrases have identical meanings?

I must admit to feeling bemused. Before reading the passage I would have said there was no difference in meaning between needn't and don't need. On the BBC Learning English I read this:

Needn't and don't need to

There is also a difference in use when these verbs are used to describe present situations. We can use both needn't and don't need to to give permission to someone not to do something in the immediate future. We can also use need as a noun here:

You don't need to water the garden this evening. It's going to rain tonight.
You needn't water the garden this evening. It's going to rain tonight.
There's no need to water the garden this evening. It's going to rain tonight.

This would confirm my initial belief; that there is no real difference in meaning but now... I'm not so sure. And if there is no difference, except for structure, why do the two forms exist side by side? Why or when did "need" become a modal verb?

"For example" vs. "just to name a few"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 08:17 AM PDT

How would you explain the differences between using "for example" and "just to name a few" in the following multiple choice:

Your smartphone might give you a wake up call, send you emails, help you to order a high-speed rail ticket and to book a hotel room for the weekend conference, _.*
(A) just to name a few
(B) for example

I'd certainly choose (A), but I don't think I can adequately explain to my students their difference, except perhaps that for example seems to rarely follow such a long list of items containing phrases.

What is “long” doing in “all (time-period) long”?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:47 AM PDT

What part of speech is long playing the part of in the bold parts of the quotations below?

  • For one thing, it shows at a glance how much money is on hand for any particular purpose all month long.
  • The fishermen stayed in their nets the whole night long.
  • Some people prefer to live in places that have the same weather or climate all year long.
  • He had told them to sit on the edge of the sandbox all recess long and not move a finger.
  • Wild animals, driven by hunger, came all winter long to live close to the feeding station.
  • Other friends worked hard all semester long and didn't feel any pressure at all as the final exam approached.
  • One half of the labor actually expended in the cultivation of these grapes would have kept them in tip-top order the whole season long if they had been planted in four rows as already suggested rather than in twenty short ones.
  • It suddenly came to him that he would never, his whole life long, see Gramps again.
  • He did such good work, and so much, that nobody would question him. Plus he could go all shift long, and most of them couldn't.
  • She realized suddenly how old and hurt he was, an elder with gray hair and loose skin, and yet he had been working with his paddle nearly the whole day long.
  • All year long, all decade long, all century long, the sun just keeps on shining.

To me it looks like it's acting as some sort of "adverbial postposition of time", just as during is an adverbial preposition of time in phrases like during the night.

The problem is that long follows its NP complement, just as ago does in three years ago, making it more of a postposition like ago than a preposition like during. I think.

How should this sort of construction best be classified? The OED calls long an adverb here.

Edit

My confusion may be that I'm unclear about the transition from something being a modifier that takes a complement and it becoming an actual preposition/postposition/adposition.

I am not referring to long used as an adverb in such collocations as "How long have you been here?" or "as long as you like". Rather, I mean what the OED gives as its sense 6 of long1 adv. the following:

6. Subjoined to expressions designating a period of time, with the sense: Throughout the length of (the period specified). [Compare German sein leben lang.]

It's been used this way at least since Middle English; the first citation given is for "all year long" from back around 1290 ᴀᴅ in the South English Legendary (a source that provides 2359 quotations):

  • c1290      S. Eng. Leg. I. 264/122
    Heore ȝat was swiþe faste i-mad: þoruȝ al þe ȝere longue.

This is not one of the entries that has yet been updated for the OED3, so perhaps the analysis has changed since the OED2. However, it is similar to the entry for ago adj. and adv, which has indeed been updated for the OED3, and which remains an adverb when used in phrases like "long ago" and "longer ago", but which it classifies as an adjective when used in the more customary collocation of time, as with this recent citation:

  • 2009     S. Craven Ruthless Awakening 32
    We agreed on the guest lists ages ago.

There appears to be some dispute about whether things like ago constitute actual instances of "postpositions" in English, or whether they are better left in their traditional categories of adjectival or adverbial modifiers that just happen to follow their modificand.

I am confortable with saying that nouns like home or Tuesday can be used adverbially, as in "I'm going home" or "I'll see you Tuesday", but this doesn't quite seem like one of those to me. On the other hand, it does remind me of:

  • I stayed through the whole night.
  • I stayed the whole night through.

If the first is to be called a preposition, but the second is not to be called a postposition, then we have to call through an adjective "modifying" night and the entire thing somehow a noun phrase being used adverbially. That seems to be the very sort of classificational contortion as is being attempted with calling long an adjective, and I find both to be particularly unsatisfying approaches.

SUMMARY

A clearer explanation of what long is and is not in the type of collocations presented in the initial example list would be much appreciated. It's ok if multiple models of analysis are presented.

PS: I do not have personal access to the recent work by Dennis Kurzon about adpositions in:

Adpositions: Pragmatic, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, ed. by Dennis Kurzon and Silvia Adler. John Benjamins, 2008

If trinity means 3 in one, what's the word for one in one, 2 in one, 4 in one, 5 in one?

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 08:57 AM PDT

In Christianity, there is the doctrine of the "trinity" of God. What would be the name of the corresponding doctrine if the number three were replaced with two, four or five?

Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile run"

Posted: 24 Jul 2022 09:44 AM PDT

Why are year, pound and mile in the singular form in the phrases below?

  • five-year-old children
  • 20 pound note
  • 10 mile run

Is that because they're acting as adjectives, which are always invariable in English?

Is it incorrect to say...

  • five-years-old children?
  • 20 pounds note?
  • 10 miles run?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)