It is a translation question and the right answer is
The women gives cookies to the kid.
I put an extra "the" before cookies and it is marked as a wrong answer. Would anyone care to give a detailed reason as to when to put article?
Unrelated side note: I can't believe after so many years studying English, I am still struggling with these basic questions..
"I seen it."
"I got it."
The two I can think of that are often (incorrectly) said. I guess "I got it" could be used to express that you got the new car you were looking at, but to me, "I seen it" is just "I've seen it" without the 've.
This sentence is from South Park. There was a lice problem in the school and the children demand that their teacher Mrs. Garrison tell them who exactly had the lice. She says that it's not important because
Whoever had the lice, they're dead now.
Now, obviously she means that the lice are dead, not the person who had them. But doesn't her sentence mean (strictly speaking) that the person is dead? In similar constructions in Standard English, can they refer to the object of the main clause? I see no syntactical difference between the first sentence and the seemingly wrong
Whatever damaged the keys, they're in my pocket now. (= the keys are in my pocket)
I guess my question is
Hope the question is on topic.
I am having some difficulty properly tagging the question. Please help :)
Answer
I think you've answered your own question. This is a pun of sorts, one might even catagorize it as a paraprosdokian.
But doesn't her sentence mean (strictly speaking) that the person is dead?
You're exactly right! In fact, I think that's what we're all supposed to think when we first hear the sentence, before we realize it's the lice that are dead.
The way the sentence is constructed invokes images of a dramatic line in a movie, something along the lines of, “Whoever it was who just tried to save the world, he's dead now.”
This is classic adult animation humor, where the scriptwriters rely on clever wordplay to invoke a laugh from an adult audience.
I'm wondering how to use an ellipsis after a complete sentence within a quote when not intending to use the entire quote. Specifically, I'm looking at a Bible verse. Consider the following:
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." - James 5:16
I want to quote and reference the first sentence (bolded part) of this verse. I can't simply write
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed." - James 5:16
because this indicates the the entirety of verse 16 is this one sentence, when in fact there is more. So I figure I need to use an ellipsis to denote the omitted content, but if I use it like this
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed..." - James 5:16
that seems to indicate that the sentence continues on after the part I've chosen, when in fact that is the end of the sentence. So then I think I should do something either like [period-space-ellipsis]
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. ..." - James 5:16
or [4-dot ellipsis]
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed...." - James 5:16
but those both look weird and wrong to me.
So what is the correct way to do this?
I was just wondering how to properly use the phrase, I am trying to talk about something that belongs to both my friend and myself so how would I say that? My friend and myself's? or a different way?
Temporary reopen note:
The linked-to question is about the verb agreeing with the grammatical number of the first item in a list in a there is/are sentence. However there is no list in this question here. Even if there were, us would seem to be plural here, so there is no good explanation of why is may be preferable to are.
You can see the linked-to question here:
The Original Question
I am dubious between these two ways of referring to two people in a place or in an area.
Example:
John: Ok folks, I am going to let you here waiting for the manager to come. It is going to take some minutes until he makes it here.
Josh: Ok, thank you.
Mathew: Alright.
Josh: Hum... Now, there is/are only us here.
Is there any reason why is or are is preferable here?
Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase?
Each student should save his questions until the end.
Each student should save her questions until the end.
Added 10/27/2019
We could use an answer from the transgender community. There are none amongst the first 23 answers. I know there's a term (in America), but i can't remember what it is.
Answer
Singular they enjoys a long history of usage in English and can be used here: "Each student should save their questions until the end."
However, “singular they” also enjoys a long history of criticism. If you are anxious about being criticized (for what is in fact a perfectly grammatical construction) I would advise rewording to avoid having to use a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun.
Some rewording strategies that can be employed:
Here for the benefit of those who lack access to its paywalled source are the full and complete operative senses from the Oxford English Dictionary. Per the OED the pronoun they has these specific subsenses for the various scenarios under discussion here:
In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun. 🗨
Use of they to refer to a singular antecedent has sometimes been considered erroneous.
🗨 Dennis Baron • A brief history of singular ‘they’
…But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche … þei neyȝþed so neiȝh… þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried… till they drew near… where William and his darling were lying together.’…
[4 September 2018]
2a. With an antecedent that is grammatically singular, but refers collectively to the members of a group, or has universal reference (e.g. each person, everyone, nobody).
Sometimes, but not always, used to avoid having to specify the gender(s) of the individual(s) being referred to; cf. sense A. 2b.
[[citations ranging from 1350–2014 omitted]]
2b. With an antecedent referring to an individual generically or indefinitely (e.g. someone, a person, the student), used esp. so as to make a general reference to such an individual without specifying gender. Cf. ʜᴇ pron. 2b.
In the 21st century, other th– pronouns (and the possessive adjective their) are sometimes used to refer to a named individual, so as to avoid revealing or making an assumption about that person’s gender; cf. sense A. 2c, and quots. 2008 at ᴛʜᴇɪʀ adj. 2b, 2009 at ᴛʜᴇᴍ pron. 4b, 2009 at ᴛʜᴇᴍꜱᴇʟꜰ pron. 2b.
[[citations ranging from 1450–2010 omitted]]
2c. Used with reference to a person whose sense of personal identity does not correspond to conventional sex and gender distinctions, and who has typically asked to be referred to as they (rather than as he or she).
[[citations ranging from 2009–2019 omitted]]
Copyright © 2019 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Retrieved 2019-10-25 23:46:13 UTC, and shown here under the Fair Use Exception.