grammar - Omitting articles when contrasting people or things with "and"

There's a rule that says articles can be omitted when nouns referring to two contrasting people or things are joined by 'and'.

The independent allowances for husband and wife will both be
available.

...the natural relationship between father and son.

In a formal sense, the main difference between teacher and student is the amount of education.

...as the distinctions between employer and employee are
gradually eroded.

...with little gardens between river and road.

There was a pause, and doctor and patient looked steadily at each
other across the quiet room.

Does the same principle apply to nouns that by default have the definite article? If so, are the sentences below correct? Why is the definite article in sentence 3 omitted in the phrase "whereas for past tense"? Shouldn't it be "the past tense"? Is the definite article in "past tense" omitted because there's also an element of contrast?

1. The relation between the sexes has always found its cosmic expression
   in the relation between moon and sun. (I'm talking about the earth's moon and sun)




2. Even as the French king was hatching plans to destroy and annihilate a nascent coexistence between English language and
   English national identity, the supremacy of French culture was
   preserved by the language in which late medieval England conducted its
   official business. (Can the definite article in "English language" be omitted?)





3. For English, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 143) point out that the difference between present perfect and past tense is that in
   the present perfect the primary focus is on the present moment,
   whereas for past tense it is on the past.

grammar - Is there any exception of apostrophe rules?

Why is there no apostrophe 's' after “election body” in the following sentence? Congress goes to top Court over election body 'inaction' on PM's speeches.

verbs - "has been raised" or "was raised" in an academic journal

The first line in my research is the following:

Since the May 6, 2010 ``Flash Crash’’ event, the following question
has been raised several times: Does High-Frequency Trading increase
the likelihood of long tail and chaotic events in financial markets?

Should I say

Since the May 6, 2010 ``Flash Crash’’ event, the following question
was raised several times: Does High-Frequency Trading increase the
likelihood of long tail and chaotic events in financial markets?

I have been told that I have to avoid "has been" and even "was" in academic journals. Is there a better way for me to improve my sentence?

Answer

If your intention was to tie the raising of said question to the event, it's possible to phrase it like this:

The May 6, 2010 ``Flash Crash’’ event provoked much questioning along the following lines: does High-Frequency Trading increase the likelihood of long tail and chaotic events in financial markets?

or alternatively (and I think it is better this way, without the question directly asked; more noticeably professional than any exclusion of "has been" or "was" would denote):

The May 6, 2010 ``Flash Crash’’ event caused many to question whether High-Frequency Trading increases the likelihood of long tail and chaotic events in financial markets.

I have to say, however, that I have never come across such a prohibition of "has been" or "was" in journals, and you should not feel like you have to abide strictly by such a restriction where it makes writing more awkward. Communication is the goal, after all.

punctuation - Is there a comma *after* a list with an Oxford comma?

Explanations of the Oxford comma often use examples that either consist of the list alone or a sentence that ends in a list, e.g.:

red, white, and blue
To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

What is unclear from these answers is whether there should be a comma after the last list item, when using an Oxford comma:

1. When my mom, my dad, and my sister came home ...


2. When my mom, my dad, and my sister, came home ...

Is there a comma after a list with an Oxford comma?

If possible, please provide a reliable source.

word choice - Is there are term for when you believe that because something hasn't happened, it won't or can't happen?

I was having a conversation with someone about whether or not robotics and AI will cause problems by eliminating jobs. They said:

"People worried about joblessness when we started to mechanize farms, their worries never panned out, therefore your worries now are misplaced."

Or to use another example:

"The last big asteroid that came close to earth didn't crash into us, therefore we'll never be hit by one ever."

Without any justification as to why the two situations are similar this line of thinking seems like it is a fallacy. If so, what is the name for it? If not is there any other word or term that describes the line of thinking?

Answer

This question is arguably better placed in the philosophy forum, but the answer is "false generalization" or "false analogy" meaning an argument that relies on superficial similarities to draw unjustified conclusions.

However, it's worth noting in the case of this particular argument, it's not clear that mechanizing farms did not in fact lead to loss of jobs, since there is currently widespread unemployment and a far lower percentage of people are now involved directly in agriculture.

punctuation - When and why did the em-dash and the hyphen supplant the semicolon?

It seems to me that semicolons are rarely used today in ordinary English writing - even in newspapers and books. They appear to have been replaced, in many cases, by em-dashes and hyphens (the hyphen being used on the Internet and/or in informal communications). In some cases, semicolons have been replaced by periods (i.e. something which might have previously been one sentence would now be written as more than one sentence). Over what period of time did this change take place, and why?

Direct to Reported Speech - a scenario of ambiguity

The question is:

How would one convert

He said, "My name is Harry"

to reported speech?

Rules do say that the converted sentence reads

He said that his name was Harry.

The factor causing discomfort is the 'was' part of it. So it means that his name 'was' Harry and nothing is said about what his name 'is'! So there is a radical change in meaning!! In that light, the converted sentence should read

He said that his name is Harry.

Isn't the latter the correct conversion?

Answer

Having looked at the site that @bigbadonk420 referred to in his answer, I disagree with that answer and interpretation of the quoted site. On my reading of that site, the two options for reported speech are (using the OP's quotation):

with backshift: He said that his name was Harry
without backshift: He says that his name is Harry

There is no suggestion that you can mix the two, which suggests that

He said that his name is Harry

is incorrect, or at least not normal usage, as also confirmed by the first Ngram mentioned by @PeterShore

punctuation - How does a dash end the sentence? Is the sentence supposed to be loose?

How does a dash end this sentence correctly?

It did seem to me that life was just too lovely to—

From A Dog's Tale by Mark Twain

Answer

A dash used like this signifies a sudden change of mood.

Imagine that the narrator (a dog) is reading her story and breaks off one train of thought abruptly. In this case, the narrator is reminiscing fondly of her puppy, and then remembers the next, less happy, part of the story:

By and by came my little puppy, and then my cup was full, my happiness was perfect. It was the dearest little waddling thing, and so smooth and soft and velvety, and had such cunning little awkward paws, and such affectionate eyes, and such a sweet and innocent face; and it made me so proud to see how the children and their mother adored it, and fondled it, and exclaimed over every little wonderful thing it did. It did seem to me that life was just too lovely to—

Then came the winter. One day I was standing a watch in the nursery. That is to say, I was asleep on the bed. The baby was asleep in the crib, which was alongside the bed, on the side next the fireplace. It was the kind of crib that has a lofty tent over it made of gauzy stuff that you can see through. The nurse was out, and we two sleepers were alone. A spark from the wood-fire was shot out, and it lit on the slope of the tent. I suppose a quiet interval followed, then a scream from the baby awoke me, and there was that tent flaming up toward the ceiling! Before I could think, I sprang to the floor in my fright, and in a second was half-way to the door; but in the next half-second my mother's farewell was sounding in my ears, and I was back on the bed again., I reached my head through the flames and dragged the baby out by the waist-band, and tugged it along, and we fell to the floor together in a cloud of smoke; I snatched a new hold, and dragged the screaming little creature along and out at the door and around the bend of the hall, and was still tugging away, all excited and happy and proud, when the master's voice shouted: "Begone you cursed beast!" and I jumped to save myself; ...

grammatical number - it's vs their (country)

What is correct?

Australia constantly improves its roads.

Australia constantly improve their roads.

Australia constantly improves their roads.

Thank you!

slang - Meaning of the statement "Are you playing thick or just are? "

Somebody told me

Are you playing thick or just are?

in the middle of a conversation. and I didn't know its meaning. I searched for "play thick" in Google, but I didn't find anything.

1. Is “are you playing thick” slang?


2. What does it mean?

Answer

I think here playing thick refers to 'pretending to be fool', so the the person is asking, "are you pretending to be a fool, or are you a fool?"

• Informal Lacking mental agility; stupid.

(AHD)

Difference in meaning between did you speak to... and have you spoken to...?

What's the difference in meaning between "Did you speak to the landlord this morning?" and "Have you spoken to the landlord this morning?"

grammar - The definite article with geographical terms

I know in English you can use the definite article with geographical expressiones such as the sea, the country, the land, the city, the beach, the seaside, but what about other geographical terms? Can I use them as generic terms to mean "the idea of ..."? I don't mean any particular place.

The jellyfish lives in the water.

(= I don't mean any particular water. I mean the idea or concept of water: an area of
water, especially a lake, river, sea or ocean)

The grasshopper lives in the meadow.

( = I don't mean any meadow. I mean the idea or concept of meadow: a field

covered in grass, used especially for hay)

The lion is the king of the jungle.

Is there a cat that lives in the desert?

There is only one type of cat that lives in the desert. The sand
cat (Felis margarita) is the only member of the cat family tied
directly to sand regions. Found in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula
and the deserts of Turkmenistan in Uzbekistan, the sand cat has

adapted to extremely arid desert areas.

Plants live in many different environments. Some live in the
ocean, some live in the desert. Plants are very important to
everyone on the planet.

Hope shows up in several places in this very dark world—such as in the
incorruptible goodness of Katniss' sister, Primrose. It shows in
Katniss' rare sacrifice for her sister, when she volunteers to take
Prim's place in the Games. It lives in the meadow and the woods, where

the natural world exists mostly unmolested by the powerful central
government.

In Africa, the rhino lives in the Savannah among zebras, lions,
giraffes, elephants, hippos, and other animals

This is what books say, but obviously they can't cover all cases:

grammar - “I like to do (be) something” vs “I like doing (being) something”

This is what I read in an answer to a previous question:

Verbs Followed by Either Gerund or Infinitive

Sometimes the meaning changes according to the verb used.

• <…>


• (dis)like


• <…>

I’d like to ask a more specific question: What is that change in the case of (dis)like, exactly? What is the difference between, say, I like being married and (?) I like to be married, I like to eat paper and I like eating paper?

Answer

OK, first let's take a look at what some grammar books say, then try to make it comprehensible with some examples:

CGEL says:

The infinitival is more associated with change, the gerund-participle with actuality. Thus someone who has recently turned forty or got married might say "I like being forty" or "I like being married". An infinitival would be strange here, suggesting repeated changes from not being forty or married to being forty or married. In this case the meaning is close to that of "enjoy", which only allows gerund-participles.

Quirk et al. say:

With the verbs which take both constructions the bias of the infinitive towards ‘potentiality’ tends to favour its use in hypothetical and nonfactual contexts; on the other hand, the participial construction is favoured when the speaker is referring to something which definitely happens or has happened.

More simply (if less precisely) the gerund-participle ("-ing" form) is used when the pleasure is derived from the action itself, whereas the infinitive ("to" form) is used when the preference is being expressed for choosing to perform the action, or the idea of the action, as distinct from the action itself.

Quirk gives the following examples:

(OK:) Would you like to see my stamp collection?

(Very odd:) Would you like ?*seeing my stamp collection?

(Questionable:) Brian loathed ?to live in the country.

(OK:) Brian loathed living in the country.

The question "Would you like seeing my stamp collection" is odd, because presumably the person being asked hasn't seen it, and doesn't know whether they'll enjoy the experience—but asking "...like to see..." is asking whether they'd appreciate the opportunity to do so—the idea of doing so. By contrast, "living in the country" is preferable because it is the experience of life in the country that Brian finds objectionable.

As for CGEL's samples: the contention is that it's preferable to say "I like being married" and "I like being forty", except in certain (very odd) circumstances. This is because the use of the infinitive implies that there is a choice going on—whereas, once you're forty, you keep being forty (well, for the next year, anyway), and similarly you tend to keep being married (divorce takes a long time!)

That said, someone like Elizabeth Taylor might well have said "I like to be married", given that she did it lots of times...

Giving another example: I might say "I like to run every morning", which means roughly "It makes me happy to choose to organise my life in this way". But saying "I like running every morning" implies that it's the actual running itself that gives me the pleasure.

tenses - Do I use "argued" or "argues"? Past or Present?

Peter Singer (who is still alive) wrote a paper in 1971. A student is now reading it and wants to make various references to it in her assignment.

Does she write, for example, "Singer argued" or "Singer argues"? Similar verbs would also be used in the paper. Argued is past tense and would appear to be used correctly when referring to a paper that was written in the past. However what is written and now being read still has currency, therefore introducing an argument for "argues"

What I would like to achieve is identify the/a explicit rule that dictates one over/or the other Then the student can apply it consistently throughout the assignment (and I will stop umming and ahhing every time and throw off the appearance of being all knowledgeable on these matters).

Use (or non-use) of articles before abstract nouns

I know I have asked a similar question before but this time I have examples taken from COCA and they do puzzle me. I would love to hear explanations from native speakers.

The following (incomplete) sentences taken from COCA show three different ways of article usage before "reduction of something".

(1) $1.5 billion could be used for things like restoration of fish and wildlife, the reduction of mercury pollution and greenhouse gas reduction.

(2) Fasting imposes a reduction of calorie intake, which is particularly significant if the hours of darkness are few

(3) A key goal of the optimization phase is reduction of communication over-head via a range of techniques, including execution of communication in parallel

Can you say "a reduction of mercury pollution" instead of "the reduction of mercury pollution" in (1)? Likewise, can you say "the reduction of calorie intake" instead of "a reduction of calorie intake" in (2)? If you can, what difference in meaning would that make in each case?

My guess is that, in using "a", the speaker (or writer) has in mind some image of what is to be reduced, whereas in using "the", the speaker (or writer) has in mind more of the fact of reduction itself than what is to be reduced, lacking a better description.

Even if my guess is right, (3) still remains to be explained. Is the lack of article before "reduction of communications over-head" a case of ellipsis? If not, why don't you need an article here as in the other two examples? What difference does the absence of an article make in comparison with "the reduction of communication over-head" or "a reduction of (in) communication over-head"? Can you or should you use "a" or "the" in this case?

In addition, there is another issue in (1). There is no article in front of "restoration". Why is there no article here, whereas there is a definite article in front of "reduction"?

punctuation - Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?

Many questions already ask about this topic (What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in "‑s"? , When did it become correct to add an “s” to a singular possessive already ending in “‑s”?, etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example:

6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants."

Examples they give include Kansas’s, Ross’s land, and Jones’s reputation. Exceptions include Jesus’  and Moses’.

Which names does this apply to? Is the Aeneas’  form correct, or is it Aeneas’s instead?

Answer

The most useful rule — and the most general and the easiest to remember — is simply that you add ’s whenever you actually say an extra /əz/ at the end when forming the possessive, compared with how you say the non-possessive version. Let your own ear be your guide. That’s all there is to it. No fancy rules full of exceptions. Just your own ear (as a native speaker, mind you).

So words ending in unstressed /iːz/ are exempt, like for example this series’ end, that species’ demise, Mercedes’, Ramses’, Sophocles’, Socrates’, Achilles’, Diomedes’, Archimedes’, Eratosthenes’, Ulysses’. (But not trapeze’s, because that one is stressed! See how that works?)

But these days, not much else is. I say “in these days” because in previous ages, some people did not add another /əz/ if it already had one, and so wrote Jesus’ to indicate they did not say an extra /əz/ there compared with Jesus: both are just /ˈd͡ʒiːzəs/ However, most people today now say Jesus’s, because it has three syllables: /ˈd͡ʒiːzəsəz/.

Same with Moses’s with three syllables instead of the older Moses’ with just two. Note that things like Ross’ and Chaz’ are always wrong, because no one says those with only a single syllable. That is a common error.

So it’s your boss’s house, because it’s got an extra syllable when you say it. Similarly, all the Jameses I have ever personally known have had the extra /əz/ tacked on when you are talking about something of theirs, which means it is for those speakers James’s house, albeit all the Jameses’ houses, because nouns are only allowed one /əz/ inflection, not two.

In all cases, the best thing to do is let your own ear be your guide, because writing should represent speech. That means that if you say an extra /əz/ then you write ’s, but if you don’t say it, then you don’t write it. That’s why you from time to time see forms like for goodness’ sake or for conscience’ sake. Those are possessive, but have no extra syllable.

As for the specific case of Aeneas, in older writing you will find that because his name already ends in /əz/, people would suppress the extra one when they would form the possessive, like Aeneas’ escape from Troy. Note very carefully that that posits a three-syllable possessive when spoken. If when you yourself say it, however, it turns out that you would yourself use the four-syllable version as most people today now do, then it would have to be Aeneas’s escape from Troy.

But now you have three issississes in a row, which will certainly require careful elocution to pull off — especially if you don’t mean to sound like Gollum with his fisheses.

american english - What does the word "whereabouts" mean, and how do I respond to it?

If someone asks me the following questions after I tell them I'm going to be in a certain country, what specifically do they want to know? For example,

Someone: "Oh, so you are going to Indonesia. Whereabouts in Indonesia are you going? Do you plan to go to Jakarta, the capitol city of Indonesia?"

and

Me: "Yes, I do plan to make a stop in Jakarta. After stopping there, I plan to keep my whereabouts a secret!"

pronouns - Them wolves or their wolves?

I just came across on lyrics of Eminem's "survival" which confused me. Here is piece of song which confused me.

Throw me to them wolves and close the gate up on me.

I thought that correct phrase is their wolves instead them wolves. Am I right?

grammar - use of I and me at the beginning of a sentence

Which one is correct:

I and my father are going to the market.

Me and my father are going to the market.

Answer

The second is not grammatical.

The first is grammatical (except that it lacks the verb 'are'), but neither idiomatic, nor conforming to speech etiquette. Politeness requires that one mentions oneself second. So one would normally say:

My father and I are going to the market.

In determining whether to say 'he and I', or 'he and me', just mentally omit the 'he'. Clearly one would not say me am going to the market, so it has to be 'I'. But one would say It belongs to my father and me, since 'I' am no longer the subject of the sentence, and the accusative pronoun is called for.

Capitalization of idioms in titles

If I'm using an idiom in a title then should all the elements of the phrase be capitalized or just the ones that are usually in capitals?

For example, which of the following should be used?

be up and Running

be Up and Running

be Up And Running

Answer

If you're using an idiom, then in formal writing none of the words should be capitalized beyond what standard grammar and punctuation (beginning of a sentence, proper names, etc) require.

In a title, which words are capitalized will depend on the stylistic concerns of your medium, but generally it will be: first word, last word, and main words, with secondary words (conjunctions less than five letters, prepositions, articles, etc) left uncapitalized.

Conjunctions of more than five letters may be capitalized, and typically, in most professional publications, they are.

vocabulary - can I say "why aren't we pinging"?

I would like to ask, but in an original and funny way
"why haven't we been texting/emailing/whatsapping etc..each other lately?"

This verb, "to ping", seemed the right one.

but I am not sure it is understandable and?or correct if I say
"Why haven't we been pinging lately?"

word choice - Which pronoun should be used with "anyone"? "They" or "you"?

Sample sentence: If anyone has the files, could (they or you) please upload them to a file-hosting website?

Context: I am writing an email to a group of people requesting that if anyone has the files I mentioned, to please upload those files to a file-hosting website. "Anyone" could be one person or more.

Answer

Surely, my first choice out of your dilemma would be to change the sentence slightly and write "if anyone has the files, please upload them to a file-hosting website".

Otherwise, although I feel that they would be the right pronoun to use to refer to anyone, because you don't know how many people could have the file and also because you don't know whether these people are men or women, still I would write you in the sentence you mention, because the context is rather friendly and they might be interpreted as overly rigid and formal.

punctuation - Two periods required?

When a sentence ends with a parenthetical statement which itself ends with a period, does the sentence also need a period? Example:

I love eating vegetables (carrots, peas, etc.).

The two periods don't look correct, but seem technically correct.

grammar - Giving an example of a "problem" where the example is plural

I've got this sentence here:

The most recent problem I can think of is personal knowledge management systems.

That seems grammatically incorrect because of the mismatch between the singular problem and the plural systems, but I can't just change it to

The most recent problem I can think of are personal knowledge management systems.

or

The most recent problems I can think of are personal knowledge management systems.

The only one that seems correct is

The most recent problem I can think of is the problem of personal knowledge management systems.

I think this equates the singular problem to the also singular problem of personal knowledge management systems. But it's extremely awkward. Any suggestions on how to handle situations similar to this?

grammaticality - "There is an apple and an orange" or "there are an apple and an orange"?

• There is an apple and an orange on the table.


• There are an apple and an orange on the table.

Which is grammatical?

grammaticality - Ordered it Offline vs Ordered it Online

I'm new to this site so i don't know the proper formatting for questions here.

My friends and I were having a debate whether or not saying "I ordered it offline" was a correct way to say "I ordered it online" or "I ordered it off the internet". It seems as though its more of a preference however are they all grammatically correct, and which one do you use/hear more often?

UPDATE

I didn't make it clear enough, when I'm referring to "I ordered it offline" I am referring to ordering something online or off the internet

Answer

Saying "I ordered it offline" might lead me to ask "So, did you order it by phone, or in person?" It would not imply the same as "I ordered it online."

Saying "I ordered it off the internet" means (to about 99% of US English speakers) the same thing as "I ordered it online."

dates - What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English?

We pronounce 1923 as nineteen twenty-three; but 1900 as nineteen hundred. Why isn't year 2000 pronounced as twenty hundred instead of two thousand?

What are the rules for pronunciation of years in English? Does it change according to the first two digits of year? Could you give examples for special cases, if any?

Answer

For one thing, "Two Thousand" is shorter to say than "twenty hundred".

• 1899: eighteen ninety-nine (shorter than one thousand eight hundred ninety-nine)



• 1900: nineteen hundred (shorter than one thousand nine hundred)


• 1901: nineteen oh one (shorter than nineteen hundred one, shorter than one thousand nine hundred one)


• 1999: nineteen ninety nine (shorter than one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine)


• 2000: two thousand (or 2 "K"?) (shorter than twenty hundred)


• 2009: two thousand nine (shorter than twenty hundred nine)


• 2010: twenty ten (shorter than two thousand ten)

Basically when the number has three zeros it is shorter to say "thousand" than "hundred". Once there are fewer than three zeros it's shorter to say "Y thousand X" for Y00X and "Y hundred X" for YYXX.

This usage isn't limited to years either. Any numbers in the same range will have the same kinds of contractions. There's a Simpsons episode where this is played for laughs, when they need eighty-five-hundred dollars to fix their roof, and they only have $500, and Homer whines that they still need eighty-hundred.

word choice - "which day is Friday" vs. "what day is Friday"

Thanks to:
"Which" vs. "what" — what's the difference and when should you use one or the other? I know that "what" can replace "which" in the examples below.
But which questions sound more more common?

• Which/what day is Friday? — It's the fifteenth.


• Which/what day is the first of November? Is it Saturday?



• Which/what month is the warmest in your city? — It's July.


• Which/what season is it now in your city? — It's summer.

Answer

For this, I have to turn to Google Ngrams:

What/Which day is

What/Which month is

What/Which year is

Based on the Ngram results, it seems clear that what is far more common today for all questions relating to dates (however, that wasn't always the case). This is also consistent with my preferred usage and experience, where I would hear what used probably 9/10 times.

pronunciation - pronouncing foreigner's names

I want to ask you if there's some special rule about pronouncing foreign names with or without accent. For example, can I say Fedor or Andrey in native russian manner and with russian accent or should I say it with english accent? Is it appropriate?

colloquialisms - "Needs to be X" vs "Needs X"

I've always used the following construct:

The book needs to be read before Thursday.

But I've heard some people say:

The book needs read before Thursday.

Which is correct? Or perhaps both?

grammaticality - Existence of "multi" in US English

I have kept the "Check Grammar" option in my browser On, so whenever I write anything wrong as per US English it gets underlined. This is also the case with "multi".

When I use this word in combination with other complete standalone words like multibillion, multimillion or multithreaded, the word "multi" gets underlined (in Red) which means it's not considered correct grammatically.

But it's not considered an error when used in words like multitude, multilateral, etc. Again lateral is a standalone word here but there seems to be no error.

Is "multi" a wrong word in US English? (The said browser software was developed in the USA.)

This link here provides the details about the word "multi" but all of the words used above are considered correct here.

Answer

You were already given this answer by several of the comments, and it's already implied in polynym's answer, but let's make it explicit:

Yes, the prefix multi is valid in American English, and usually used unhyphenated. You can see dozens of examples on Wiktionary or Merriam-Webster. If your grammar and spelling checker fails to accept it, it should be overridden manually.

Is there a comma needed before quotation?

Sam developed an annual sweepstakes promotion entitled “The Free Gas Punt Return Game”.

Do I need a comma after entitled or not?

american english - Word Stress in "It's up to you"

I watched a video on Youtube about the pronunciation of the phrase "It's up to you": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaZrkhCqWbk and it says that "up" is the stressed word.

I think that "It's" can be reduce to "ts" in fast speech. I noticed this in American movie especially with phrases such as "It's okay" (pronounced as: tsokay).

I would like to know if we need any stress on the last word the pronoun "you" or not? The video doesn't mention anything about the word "you" for me it seems that it doesn't require stress in a normal conversation.

Any suggestion appreciated. Thank you!

grammar - Must a coordinating clause always have a subject?

E.g.,

(1) You are getting yourselves into a very dangerous situation; get out of there at once.

The imperative following the first clause has an implied subject, so would this mean it is a coordinating clause? If the above sentence was coordinated with so, would that change the status of the clause?

(2) You should wear a suit, a clean shirt and a tie for the interview, and be punctual.

Is and be punctual a coordinating clause?

(3) Worcester is a very sought after porcelain, and is regarded as the finest of the period by many experts.

The following clause of this sentence contains a passive structure with an implied subject, so does this make it a full coordinating clause? How would the status of the sentence change if by many experts were omitted?

grammaticality - Using 'very' with a noun

Are these correct ways to use very with a noun?

She is the very girl I want.

On the very year of 2012, comes the end of the world.

This is the very company everyone wants to work for.

What I understand is that very can be used to emphasize the importance of a noun.

Answer

It is correct, and the dictionary gives a definition for "very" used this way:

precise; particular: That is the very item we want

so, "very" can be used to indicate that something is the right and exact thing you were looking for.

hyphenation - "Well-being" or "wellbeing"?

I was writing a document in Microsoft Word and I used the word "well-being". Word told me to correct it to "wellbeing". When I do, Word tells me to correct it back to "well-being". Which is correct? I am stuck in an infinite loop of incorrect grammar.

Answer

Many word combinations go a progress from open (separate words) through hyphenated (one finds to-day in older texts) to closed (written as a single word, like nevertheless). Ngram shows the hyphenated spelling still five times as popular as the closed one among authors and editors of books as of 2008.

indefinite articles - A XHTML document or An XHTML document

When writing this sentence:

So it's possible to do an XHTML quine, but not a HTML quine

I noticed that I used an for XHTML but not for HTML. In the discussion on this thread, I've picked up on a few points:

Use an when the following sound is a vowel-sound. The letter X is
pronounced eks ... so an eks-em-el code.

And,

XML code, by the way, is not singular. "An XML code" sounds as odd as
"a C code" or "a Visual Basic code". You could say "an XML tag" but
"XML code" refers to any quantity of code written in XML.

As well as,

1. XML stands for "Extensible Markup Language." (not "extended")

Therefore it seemed more natural to type an for something that's singular (document) and begins with an x. It seems like the "ex" in "extensible" is similar to the "ex" in "extra", since you pronounce the consonants in the XML acronym. Is it incorrect to use an in this case?

Answer

Generally, you use "a" or "an" based on the way you pronounce the acronym (and not its expanded form). The fact that "ex" is the start of either "extensible" or "extended" has nothing to do with the way the letter X is pronounced (which also turns out to be "ex").

So if you pronounce it "ex-aitch-tee-em-ell document", prefix it with "an" (an XHTML document).

Similarly for HTML, "aitch-tee-em-ell" still starts with a vowel, so you'd use "an" for it as well.

So this form:

So it's possible to do an XHTML quine, but not an HTML quine

would be correct.

---

Now, an acronym like SQL is more contentious, because "ess-cue-ell" and "sequel" are two ways to pronounce it, one with a vowel and one without, so "a SQL database" and "an SQL database" are both valid depending on how you pronounce it.

word choice - What are the differences between "disseminate", "propagate" and "spread"?

What are the differences between the three words: disseminate, propagate and spread?

Here are some examples from a fill-in-the-blank test:

1. News is __ by means of television and radio. (disseminated)



2. Don't __ malicious reports. (propagate)


3. Some people are keen on __ rumours. (spreading)

I want to know the specific differences of the three words, and why they cannot be replaced with each other.

grammar - How do I say "now it holds" in past tense?

I'm writing a short story, and came across a weird grammar issue. Here's a simplified snippet:

The holding cell was spacious, originally intended to hold a dozen prisoners. But now it held a single woman...

Now and held don't really agree because the first suggests present tense while the second suggests past tense. I could write "then it held", so then and held are both past tense, but I would interpret that as "first, the cell was spacious, then it held a woman and was no longer spacious", rather than "despite being spacious, at that exact moment the cell only held one woman".

I could also write "it held a woman", which would be accurate, but the idea is to differentiate between the past tense where the cell was designed (and presumably used) for a dozen prisoners and the past tense where the cell was holding a single woman.

This is similar to historical present tense, but I don't think it's the same. I feel like this is a common problem that has an easy solution, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

Can I just write "now it held", and it be obvious that now refers to "the point in the story currently being narrated" rather than "the point in time the reader is reading this point in the story"?

I want to show the woman's isolation and give the sense that even inside a prison cell, she feels almost insignificant, without saying that directly. Hence the contrast between a cell designed for a dozen prisoners and her being alone.

I'd welcome suggestions on better ways to write the sentences in general, but this question is specifically about how to say "at this moment relative to the narrative, < something >" in a concise, grammatically-sound manner.

pronouns - They stayed that way: he/him/his playing his guitar, she/her singing her songs

I've found other threads (see example links below), but I still can't sort this one out on my own. Are these -ings gerunds or participles? And therefore should they be preceded by accusative, possessive, or nominative pronouns?

They stayed that way: he/him/his playing his guitar, she/her singing her songs.

Helpful Example Threads:

When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner?)

What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?

grammar - Didn't you know there+ was/is

What is the difference between the following:

Didn't you know there was an election today.

Didn't you know there is an election today.

Isn't the second one ungrammatical?

Plural or singular when being asked "what's the unit of a number"

Example 1: "What's the common measuring unit of the speed of a car in the United States?"
Do we say "It's mile per hour" or "It's miles per hour"?

Example 2: "Please enter the degrees of the angle:" as the text for an input field. Is it okay to say "Please enter the degree of the angle" too?

Example 3: "Angle (degrees)". Also a text for an input field. Should we write "Angle (degree)" instead?

This is NOT a question asking whether units are singular or plural following a number. That has been already well answered here.

One of the answers in the link mentioned that "All of the units are inherently plural". If this is true, we should say the unit for speed in the metric system is "meters per hour" instead of "meter per hour". Since this is a single answer and it doesn't have any reference, I'm not sure if it's correct. Even if it's true, why "m/s" then?

Singular/plural Nouns as Adjectives

How do you know when to use singular or plural nouns if they're used as adjectives?

i.e.

32-bit computer vs 32-bits computer?

teacher union vs teachers union?

wedding planner vs weddings planner?

sport medicine vs sports medicine?

student council vs students council?

Which one is correct?

Answer

You are thinking of noun adjuncts, or attributive nouns.

Both Wikipedia and someone from Pearson Education state that traditionally, all attributive nouns are singular. However, the number of plural attributive nouns have increased over the years in a rather arbitrary manner. This means that there is no longer a set rule to determine whether the attributive is singular or plural.

Despite this, there is a rough guide that you can use.

The attributive noun tends to be plural in the following situations:

1: The singular form might lead to ambiguity

an arts degree (a degree in the humanities) as opposed to an art degree (a degree in fine art)

[I believe that this situation is what is referred to on wikipedia as "lexical restrictions", providing the example of "arm race" vs "arms race"]

2. There is no singular form of a noun (in pluralia tantum)

a customs officer

3. There is a need to denote variety

a soft drinks manufacturer [but] a car manufacturer

4. A topical issue comes forth, often in newspaper stories...

the tapes issue

the tapes compromise

the Watergate tapes affair

the White House tapes mystery

and other examples, including jobs cut.

[I am not entirely sure what the point of this fourth category is]

[Source: Pearson Education
, directly quoted apart from what is enclosed inside square brackets]

To this list I add my own:

5. [The attributive noun is plural if] it comes from the possessive form of the word

teachers union

ladies man

However, this is more of an explanation rather than a rule you can use. There are too many exceptions, and you are unlikely to know the origins of the word. It doesn't make sense that it is teachers union but not students council.

Note that we often "choose by ear and it doesn’t matter (employee lounge, employees lounge)" (Chicago Manual of Style).

I would argue that it would be easier to just look it up every time and memorise words instead of trying to find a rule or categorise them. Even as a native speaker, I was not entirely sure whether it was "sport medicine" or "sports medicine" before looking it up. If you find yourself completely lost and without internet, go with the singular form because it is the traditional form and more common.

grammar - Correct order of addressing

While writing an email on behalf of 2 other people.
Should I write.. Savin, Steve and Myself

Or

Myself, Savin and Steve.. ?

I remember reading somewhere it is always, first person, second and third.. My doubt is with the order and not in the usaage of 'Myself' or 'Me'
Thanks.

grammar - "New York is a great place to live." (no preposition?)

New York is a great place to live.

New York is a great place to live in.

I've seen the former usage a lot and I've started wondering what the grammar aspects of it are.

The main question I'm asking involves the grammar when the preposition in the end of the sentence is deleted. Is it equally formal or correct to omit it? What are the grammar properties of this?

Some more examples of similar usage:

This organisation is a great place to work.

This is a great place to stay/sit/study/travel/go.

Just to show that 'live' isn't special in this case.

Note: I'd posted the same question on ELL before, but the answers were not satisfying enough (the answers there did not seem to provide the precise grammar aspects of this, those that could be in a serious grammar book), so I'm posting this here to get some more views on the question. I hope it is acceptable.

Answer

Simply put: without the preposition, the infinitive is either a truly intransitive verb, or a truly transitive one; with the preposition, it is what is sometimes called a prepositional verb, i.e., a verb that—similar to how phrasal verbs work—must be paired with a preposition to take an object. The object is then not a direct object, but it is still semantically (and to a certain extent also syntactically) the object of the verb.

1A. I need a pen to write with.
1B. I need a pen to write.
2A. I have a book to write in.
2B. I have a book to write.

The difference here is clear: in the A sentences, it's explicitly stated that the pen is the instrument with which you will be writing and the book is the place you'll be writing. In 1B, a pen is just given as something that you need to have in order to carry out the act of writing; other things in that category would be paper, a desk, a chair, etc. (or these days, a laptop). In 2B, the book is simply the object of the verb.

In other words, when there is no preposition, you have to look at the constituents in the sentence to determine whether the verb is transitive or intransitive—if it's intransitive, the infinitive is often an infinitive of purpose (meaning in order to). When there is a preposition, you can usually assume the topic mentioned before the infinitive is part of a prepositional object, that is, the verb is acting in a mostly-transitive way, and the entire prepositional phrase is the object.

So what, then, of your example?

New York is a great place to live (in).

This doesn't seem to fit either: live in this sense does not take direct objects, and yet a place has no preposition.

This is because place isn't really and truly acting as a normal noun—it's more like the nominal form of the adverbial entity (some)where/here/there. Live in the sense we’re looking at here takes an adverbial phrase complement (like somewhere), but an adverbial phrase cannot be qualified by an adjective (well, it can; but its meaning changes a bit then), so a generic noun is substituted, acting as a stand-in.

If you replace place with a more regular noun that doesn't have this property, you'll see that they don't work:

*It's a great city to live.
*It’s a great street to live.

None of these two work, because you cannot *live a city/street the way you can live a place: a place is basically a noun phrase that has been semi-frozen as a pseudo-adverbial, acting like (some)where, so it takes no preposition. Cities and streets, though, do not do this, and they need to be part of a prepositional clause to be used adverbially like this. What does work is using an adverbial:

It's somewhere to live, I guess.

Naturally, if you use live as a transitive verb with a direct object, it works fine:

You only have one life to live!

And since place is still also a noun and can easily function as such, you can also use the prepositional verb live in [noun phrase] with it as the noun—which is why the double forms with and without the preposition are possible in your example.

How to handle a single quote STARTING a quotation?

I've done some research, both on this SE and off, but I can't find an answer to my unique problem. So I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate and I just missed something.

I'm dealing with a situation in my writing where a speaker begins a quotation with a single quote. Having a quotation start with three quotes looks strange, not to mention that Word won't let me do it (the single quote faces the wrong way), so I've been wondering if there is a different way to write it, or perhaps a rule to follow about it.

This is the sentence I'm trying to write:

"'Discuss things with her' is hardly what he means."

The speaker is quoting a different speaker, as denoted by the single quotes. I could rearrange the sentence to avoid the problem, but I would prefer not to, as I think it sounds best this way.

How do I handle single quotes starting a quotation?

---

Note: I did search this SE for this question. There are a lot of questions about single quotes IN quotations and ENDING quotations, but I was unable to find anything about them STARTING quotations. That's the specific problem I'm faced with.

Answer

Of course this is the way to do it.

“‘Discuss things with her’ is hardly what he means.”

So this is not a problem in English Language and Usage.

If Word won't let you do it then .........
don't use Word.
Or else convince Microsoft that this is a bug in Word.

grammar - 'Who' versus 'what' when talking about relationships between two people

I'm taking an intro Spanish class and we learned the phrase "qué es ella de ti" to ask how someone is related to someone else. "Qué" is the equivalent of "what". I was confused about why you wouldn't use the equivalent of "who"... I considered what would be appropriate in English but I'm still confused. I guess "what" makes sense since you're actually talking about the relationship and not directly the person. However, because a person is involved I think "who" sounds more natural; to me, this seems especially true in past tense. "What" also makes sense because the reply "it is complicated" seems to fit.

Consider:

(Looking at a photo)
Who is she to you? She is my grandmother|friend.
What is she to you? She is my grandmother|friend.

(In reference to a dead person)
Who was she to you? She was my grandmother|friend.
What was she to you? She was my grandmother|friend.

Even if it is an awkward way to ask the question, which is correct and why? Not too sure how to tag this question.

Answer

'What...' is more common than 'Who...'

What in this context does not refer directly to her. It refers to the basis or reason for your knowing each other. The question asks what it is that she does that results in your knowing each other (e.g. she goes to the same swimming pool as me, she is my accountant...).

Who refers to her directly. The question asks her relationship to you (e.g. sister, mother, mother's friend, best friend, class mate...).

Clearly, there can be some overlap. But, taking your first example...

Who is she to you? She is my grandmother.

What is she to you? One of the most important people in my life.

adjectives - a red-beard man (or) a red-bearded man

would you please help me about this? which is correct: a red-beard man or

a red-bearded man?

Thanks alot

word choice - Which is correct, "be proceeded" or "be processed" (used in business letter)

Which usage (be proceed/be processed) is correct in the following sentence? (This is written in a business letter) Are there any differences between these two words? Thanks a lot!

1. Please be noted that your order won't be "proceeded" until we receive your confirmation.




2. Please be noted that your order won't be "processed" until we receive your confirmation.

Answer

Proceed is an "intransitive" verb: it cannot be used with a direct object, only with a subject. That is, you cans say "X proceeds", but not "We proceed X".

As such, you also cannot use the passive voice ("be proceeded") since the point of passive is to express that an object gets acted upon; since there can be no object, there can be no valid passive form.

Process has no such limitation; indeed, as it is a transitive verb, it requires an object.

Thus your second sentence is the more correct option.

(However, "Please be noted" should be either "Please note" or "Please be aware".)

syntactic analysis - Does the word "function" in this sentence make grammatical sense?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I honestly just want to confirm something and I need people who understand English grammar better than myself to help me out here to see if this makes grammatical sense.

Does the word "function" in the sentence "healing is a function of magic" make grammatical sense, when the intended meaning is that healing is something that magic can be used to perform, or that healing is an application of magic? If not, can reasons for this, and potentially a correct alternative, be provided so that I do not make the same mistake in the future?

Thank you.

Answer

Yes.

Take a look at this [definition] of function as a noun1:

What something does or is used for.

That's how I'm reading your example: magic can be used for healing. Magic does healing. Healing is a function (one of perhaps several) of magic.

More generally, the structure of sentence you've written is pretty common in English. Here's two ways to think of it:

[Thing 1] is [a kind] [of thing 2].

Subject copula2 subject complement3

The part following the verb describes what the subject is. Function works fine in this respect, as would many nouns.

word usage - Lanthanum vs lanthanium

All lanthanides except for lanthanum have suffix "-ium". Why lanthanum is so special, and why this particular word form has been considered canonical? Is using of "lanthanium" these days allowed, or it's forbidden?

It looks like in 19th century both forms were utilized, but since 1900..1910 "lanthanium" vanished from the grid:

In 20th century only few authors ever used "lanthanium", e.g. some recent publications also include "lanthanium", but it is rather an exception than a rule. In the other hand, I haven't discovered any IUPAC rules explicitly declaring "lanthanium" as a word to be avoided.

There are also related topics on English.SE (Suffix ‘-ium’ vs. ‘-um’) and Chemistry.SE (Why do the names of most chemical elements end with -um or -ium?), but neither provides a distinct answer.

Answer

I doubt that it is possible to say why lanthanum won out as the standard name. However, lanthanium is not necessarily a mistake. It was one of several names used for the element, which was discovered in 1839 – well before the establishment of IUPAC in 1919 and naming of the lanthanides in 1925, and even before the development of the periodic table in 1869.

The discovery of lanthanum was first announced in French in the Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. The name given by Mosander, from the Ancient Greek λανθάνειν (lanthanein), was reported as Lantane. It is still known as lanthane in French today. When the discovery was reported in Philosophical Letters later that year the name was translated as Latanium.

What might this example teach us about singular "they"?

I just now encountered the following sentence in a student paper:

Any new parents that have adopted a child of a different race generally embrace their biological parents[’] race.

Having worked with this student already on this specific point of her argument, I happen to know that the biological parents here in question are the biological parents of the adopted child. Of two possible antecedents for the possessive determiner their, child makes the most sense and is the nearer.

Why, then, if singular they is so fully normal in English as is often claimed, do we at first reading tend to assume that the reference here is to the adoptive parents’ own biological parents, and their culture? That some slight double-take is almost always required of a native speaker in interpreting they/them/their as singular has been demonstrated by Anthony J. Sanford and Ruth Filik (“‘They’ as a Gender-Unspecified Singular Pronoun: Eye Tracking Reveals a Processing Cost.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60.2 [2007]: 171–78); but this case, where a genuinely plural antecedent is available, I think goes way beyond the usual mental/ocular hiccup.

If you are an advocate of the singular they, how do you justify this usage? Do advocates of singular they justify it?

Singular and plural possessive of "species"

I need to construct a sentence, in which I'm referring to a feature of each of the animals in a given species. I don't quite know what the possessive of species should be, both in singular and plural.

Example:
(Talking about a single species with fuzzy ears.)

The species' ears are notably fuzzy.

Is the above correct? What if I had to mention multiple species all having fuzzy ears?

grammar - Tensed verb form or the plain form when used after "that" (in a mandative construction)

I know that each is a singular subject, but in certain cases it seems that is not the case. For example, in this sentence below, why would the correct verb be "keep" instead of "keeps?"

The tour guide recommends that each child keep close to his or her parents in order to avoid leaving someone behind.

hyphenation - How do I hyphenate an open-form compound word with another that should be hyphenated?

I'm confused about how to combine an open-form compound word with a word that would normally be hyphenated. There's excellent guidance for making the open vs. closed vs. hyphenated decision, but I don't see how to apply this when hyphenating the open-form word looks wrong.

For example, make a compound word out of North, America, and based. North America is open formed and something-based is hyphenated. Is Coca-Cola a...

North America-based company: this seems very wrong as it de-emphasizes North America as a proper-noun place and makes it sound like the company is based in the North part of America (which is neither accurate nor the intent of the phrase).

North America based company: feels jolting to read and omits what seems like a necessary hyphen before "based"

North-America-based company: looks best(?), but has hyphenated the open-formed compound "North America", which unlike "well-thought-out plan" still seems wrong, despite the guidance at the linked answer above regarding phrasal adjectives*.

_{* the aforelinked answer says every word is hyphenated in phrasal adjectives , but for some open-form words this looks wrong}

Note: I think my question could be improved with an example that looks even more egregious, but I can't think of one.

Answer

The Chicago Manual prefers a spare hyphenation style; their guideline is "hyphenate only if doing so will aid readability". So Chicago would recommend North America based.

When I look up based in Wordnik, all of their examples where based is preceded by a proper name use the hyphen, e.g., U.S.-based, N.Y.-based, and so North America-based by extension.

However, I would share your reservations about joining America to based, and would use North America based.

The Chicago Manual notes:

Far and away the most common spelling questions for writers and
editors concern compound terms—whether to spell as two words,
hyphenate, or close up as a single word.

To aid your decision, they offer this handy table.

articles - Dedicated "To women" or "To the women"?

If I want to dedicate my article to all the women in the world, should I write
"To women"
or
"To the women"?

grammar - Past perfect progressive and past perfect

When is it possible to use past perfect instead of past perfect progressive to show that the action is still in progress?

I was just looking for more examples like the one below where either form can be used.

When the action began before the time of speaking in the past, and continued up to that time, or stopped just before it, we can often use either form. ^SOURCE

It was now six and he was tired because he had worked since dawn＝It was now six and he was tired because he had been working since dawn.

I think in my examples they can't be used interchangeably.

I had been eating dinner, when the doorbell rang. (The action is still in progress now, or has just ended)

I had eaten dinner, when the doorbell rang. (A finished action)

I had been cleaning my place when she arrived. (The action is still in progress now, or has just ended)

I had cleaned my place when she arrived. (A finished action)

I had eaten and I had cleaned imply that the actions have finished, but I need to show that they are still in progress.

I think I should remove 'now' and write that the action was still in progress at that moment in the past and it didn't finish or finished just before it or just finished.

Answer

The short answer is that you may employ the simple past perfect to express a continuing action only when the expression is atelic or bears in context a reasonably natural atelic interpretation.

A telic expression is one which has a goal or ending point "built in" to its sense—finish, for instance. Employing the test suggested in the article linked above, it makes perfect sense to say He finished in an hour, but not (normally) He finished for an hour.

Expressions which do not have such a goal are atelic. In your first example, work is an atelic expression: using the same test, He worked for an hour is acceptable, but not (normally) He worked in an hour. Atelic expressions are, so to speak, inherently continuous. Consequently, a simple past perfect construction use supports a continuous sense; this is why the two are "interchangeable".

Your other examples, however, are telic. Eating dinner and cleaning a room are not (normally) protracted indefinitely, they come to an end when the dinner is consumed and the room is clean. Consequently, using simple perfect constructions implies completion, and if you want to convey that the action continues you must employ a progressive construction.

Note, however, that "telicity" is a very subtle matter in practice. As the linked article tells you, grammarians are in some disagreement over just how it works; and I have been careful to qualify all my analyses with the (normally) tag.

Note, too, that there is an alternative to the two constructions you illustrate. The past progressive ("I was eating dinner when ... " and "I was cleaning my space when ... ") is more natural to my ear than the past perfect progressive. You want the past perfect progressive only if you employ a qualifier like since dawn, which removes the focus from the present-in-the-past to the past-in-the-past, the stretch of time which preceded the present-in-the-past.

grammar - Which one is correct: "wish I was here" or "wish I were here"?

Which one is the correct form: "Wish I was here" or "wish I were here"? I've heard both of them many times but I don't know which one is correct.

grammatical number - "40-50 years old" vs. "40-50 year olds" when referring to a group

In formal research, which is more correct, and why:

• the group of 40-50 years old
  OR


• the group of 40-50 year olds

In any case the phrase in bold is to be treated as a noun only, as in:

The middle group of executives, ie. 40-50 years old is well
balanced....

Without a range, the hyphenation rules I am used to would suggest "15-year olds" for instance. However "the 15-25-year olds ..." doesn't present well, does it?

There are related questions here, but none that seem to exactly address this topic. Eg.

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

The main difference perhaps is that I need to use ranges, which already use a hyphen.

Answer

If you are using it as a compound adjective or noun, as in your example sentence, it should be "40-50-year-olds".

If you are using it as a separate qualifier, as in BillFranke's suggested alternate wording, than it would be "those 40-50 years old".

Confusing, perhaps, but the general rule is that when any sort of counted "thing" is used as an adjective, the object of the count is singular. "40-year-old man", "3-mile run", etc. Making it a range instead of a single number doesn't change that.

But when a number and an object of that number are used "on their own", i.e. not as a compound word, the normal rules of pluralization apply: "those 1 year old", "those 2 years old", etc.

syntactic analysis - What does this long sentence mean? The part "..believing, that is, that ...."

What does this long sentence mean? I am confused in the parts-

Part 1: " believing, that is, that..." and

Part 2: "in terms of good and evil, confusing human issues with matters that do not relate to us"

"Both insisted on rejecting Democritus’s naturalistic explanations in favour of trying to understand the world in finalistic terms – believing, that is, that everything that happens has a purpose, a way of thinking that would reveal itself to be very misleading for understanding the ways of nature – or, in terms of good and evil, confusing human issues with matters that do not relate to us."

Answer

The purpose of "that is" in Part 1 is to further clarify the previous clause. The writer wanted to add clarity to what the subjects believed; "[the subjects] insisted [something] in favor of [something else]" is then expanded upon by saying essentially, "in other words the subjects believed [yet another thing]".

The phrase "confusing human issues with matters that do not relate to us" in Part 2 is an alternate perspective which is juxtaposed with the earlier statement, "[the belief that] everything that happens has a purpose, [and furthermore] a way of thinking that would reveal itself to be very misleading for understanding the ways of nature." The phrase "in terms of good and evil" is used to give context to the alternate perspective.

meaning - "Needs repairing" vs. "needs to be repaired"

Do the following two sentences mean the same thing? If so, which is more commonly used?

1. My car needs repairing.


2. My car needs to be repaired.

Present Perfect vs. Present Perfect Continuous

how are you?

Well, my biggest doubt at the moment is the difference between these two tenses. Actually, the more I study the more I have doubts with these tenses.

Present Perfect vs Present perfect continuous /
Is there any difference between Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous?

These similar threads helped me to clarify and reiterate my previous understanding.

I'm not posting in these threads because the site suggests avoiding asking for clarification (I don't know why because it would avoid new threads with the same content).

My main doubt is as follows:

I've lived in New York for two years.

In my understanding, the sentence above implies (1) that I lived in NY for two years and now I live in another place; or (2) I'm moving to another city after two years living in NY; or (3) I lived in NY for two years, then I moved to another place for some period and, finally, I'm returning. Is that correct?

I've been living in New York for two years.

Whereas the sentence above, in my understanding, implies that I lived in NY for two years and I still living there.

Anyway, many sources that I've already read say that these two sentences have the same meaning and are interchangeable. Therein lies my question. Is that correct? Because if these two sentences are interchangeable, it destroys all my understanding.

Thanks in advance.

Answer

In my lifetime I've lived in many different countries. I've lived in England, Ireland, Spain and in Italy.

I lived in England when I was a young girl, and in Ireland for one year.

For the last ten years I have been living in northern Italy.

1. I could in the future live in a different country. Actually, I'm thinking of moving to Boston in the USA in the near future. Hence I used the present perfect tense in the first sentence.




2. I don't live in England or in Ireland now, therefore I used the past simple tense.




3. I now live in Italy, it's a temporary situation, I might move to Boston but I'm still thinking about it. Using the present perfect continuous tense emphasizes the temporality of my situation. If I had written, I have lived in Italy for the last ten years the meaning would be the same, the listener/reader would understand that I am living in Italy now.

---

Michael Swan in Practical English Usage has this to say:

Present perfect: actions and situations continuing up to the present (details)
Use of the present perfect

When we want to talk about actions or situations which started in the past and have continued up to the present, we often use the present perfect to show the connection between past and present. Note that we never use a present tense when we say how long a situation has been going on.

i) I've been waiting for three quarters of an hour.
ii) We have had this flat since 1955.
iii) I have always liked English people.
iv) I've studied human nature all my life.

The present perfect is also used for long actions and situations which started in the past and went on until very recently.

vi) I've painted two rooms since lunchtime.
vii) "You look hot." — "yes, I've been running."
viii) I've been reading some of your poetry. It's not bad.

[...]

Present perfect simple and progressive

The present perfect progressive is used especially for more temporary actions and situations; when we talk about more permanent situations, we prefer the present perfect simple. Compare:

• I've been living in Sally's flat for the last month.


• My parents have lived in Bristol all their lives.


• I haven't been working very well recently.


• He hasn't worked for years.

The present perfect simple is often used to express the idea of completion: to say that an action has just finished, or to talk about its results. The present perfect progressive emphasizes the continuation of the activity. Compare:

• I've been reading your book. (= I haven't finished it.)



• I've read your book. (= I've finished it.)




• I've been learning irregular verbs all afternoon.




• I've learnt my irregular verbs. (= I know them.)




• Sorry about the mess — I've been painting the house.



• I've painted two rooms since lunchtime.

Grammar: Should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"?

I read the following sentence, "My mother won't put up with my sister or I swearing." My question is, should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"?

dialects - When is it appropriate to use the original pronunciation of a foreign word versus the English pronunciation?

When reading to an audience, or speaking in conversation, when is it appropriate to use the original pronunciation of a foreign word versus the English pronunciation (assuming you know the appropriate pronunciation for it)? Is it considered rude, or condescending? Or is it considered a mark of being knowledgeable?

One of the things to consider are place names. When referring to Paris, France, should it be pronounced with the silent 'S' as the French would say it, or with the 'S'? Should Hiroshima be pronounced as a Japanese speaker would pronounce it slightly more emphasis on RO, rather than the SHI? Should Mount Pinatubo be pronounced as a Filipino speaker would pronounce it with shorter stronger vowels, or the longer vowels? (e.g. Pi as is 'pick' rather than 'pea'.) Should Wichita be pronounces as the original "shi" rather than the modern "chi"?

Pronounce pesos or sombrero as a Spanish speaker 'eh' or the English 'ay'?

(I can't think of other common words right now that aren't words taken from other languages like hurricane, boondocks, tornado, etc. which I think have (correctly) changed to English pronunciations.)

verbs - Why "he knows it" and not "he know it"

Why is it I know it and They know it but He knows it? But then I knew it, They knew it and He knew it?

Answer

In many languages, and in Indo-European languages in particular, verbs are conjugated according to person and number. In other words, the ending of the verb changes based on the person of the subject (I, you or he/she).

Examples:

        English   Hungarian  Romanian  Greek 

I       know      tudok      știu      ξέρω

you     know      tudsz      știi      ξέρεις


he/she  knows     tud        știe      ξέρει

In the past, all Indo-Europan languages used to have verb conjugation, including English (see Old English verb conjugation---the ending in the 3rd person contained -þ/ð, the modern day "th", which is similar in pronunciation to s/z). But as time passed and languages changed, some of them have lost verb conjugation and now indicate the person by prepending a pronoun (I, you or he/she). One example is Norwegian, where even the copula ("to be") lost conjugation. In English this process was not complete. The -s in the third person is a remnant, and the verb "to be" has a different form in all persons.

---

It is interesting to note that the original English 2nd person singular (thou) was replaced by 2nd person plural (you). In archaic texts that still use thou, you will find thou knowest, using the -st ending. Thus until fairly recently, English has not just one, but two preserved endings: 2nd person -st and 3rd person -s.

---

You might find it interesting that some languages conjugate verbs not only according to the person of the subject, but also the person of the object. In Hungarian (which is not Indo-European), "I know him" is "ismerem" while "I know you" is "ismerlek" (this is different from "tudok" which means "to know a fact").

grammar - "I hope that my search ends now" or "I hope my search ends now"?

I was doing a question for Yahoo Answers and suddenly I can't choice.
Maybe because I never study English(after elementary and high school), I don't know which is the right sentence?

Of course I know that I should study, and I'll do.

Many thanks.

grammar - it's important that he... -- it's important for him to

I'm always struggling with these structures:

1) It's important/vital/essential that + subject + (should +) verb

• It's vital that you (should) do exactly as I say.



• It's important that they (should) attend every day.


• It's essential that everyone (should) be here on time.

2) It's strange/natural/interesting/curious that + subject + should + verb

• It's curious that they should offer him the job.


• It's strange that he should be late.


• It's only natural that parents worry about their children.

Even though I know these sentences are grammatically correct I find them a little complicated and cumbersome with all the "shoulds" and subjunctives and everything, so I tend to avoid them and say:

It's important/vital/strange/natural/etc. + for + pronoun + to...

The thing is I'm not sure this is always correct. Do you think it's possible to change the sentences above this way?

• It's vital that you do exactly as I say. → It's vital for you to do exactly as I say.



• It's important that they attend every day. → It's important for them to attend every day.


• It's essential that everyone be here on time. → It's essential for everyone to be here on time.


• It's curious that they should offer him the job. → It's curious for them to offer him the job.


• It's strange that he should be late. → It's strange for him to be late.


• It's only natural that parents worry about their children. → It's only natural for parents to worry about their children.

So can I think of this as a rule that works (at least) most of the time?

Thanks.

grammar - "that" in place of "so"

Actual sentence:

"You're going to get an exam so simple that anyone can pass it."

"You're going to get an exam so simple anyone can pass it."

How about this:

"You're going to get an exam that simple anyone can pass it."

Does the sentence make sense?

Answer

Before answering your question, let me throw light on the use of 'so' and 'that'.

1. So- 'So' is used to show/denote the amount/intensity of something.
   For Ex. It was so beautiful. Here 'so' denotes that the thing was very beautiful. The intensity of beauty was high.
   In your sentence, "the exam was so simple" , here 'so' denotes that the intensity of simplicity of exam was very high i.e the exam was very simple.




2. That - In yours type of sentence, 'that' is used for 'Comparison', i.e to make comparison of one thing in the sentence to another.
   
   In the sentence, "You will get an exam that simple, anyone can pass it", here 'that' is making comparison of the of exam to an exam which is easy for anyone to pass.

So, yes your sentence does make sense.
If you have any confusion or anything you want to clarify, tell me in the comment :)