Skip to main content

All Topics

such that

FROM Knowledge and Memory In both of these cases, then, understanding means attempting to extract indexes such that old stories can be related to new ones. Is it the same as 'so that'? Can I replace it with 'so that'?Read More...
Hi, Duaiekan—The meaning of "such that" there is "in such a way that." If you replaced "such that" with "so that," the meaning would be different; it would indicate that the purpose of attempting to extract indexes is to relate old stories to new ones. However, a paraphrase is possible with "so" and "that" separated: In both of these cases, then, understanding means attempting so to extract indexes that old stories can be related to new ones.Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

To have had

"Oh, I am so sorry. She is young to have had a failing heart." Dear Sir What is the meaning "to have had" in the above sentence? In what situations these phrase use in English?Read More...

Mandative should vs Putative should.

Hi, everyone. The following 2 paragraphs are quoted from: https://www.thoughtco.com/puta...ould-grammar-1691554 1, In English grammar, putative "should" is the use of the word should in contexts that indicate surprise or disbelief, or that refer to the occurrence (or possible occurrence) of some situation or event. This usage differs from the should of obligation (i.e., the mandative "should"). 2, In addition, putative should "occurs in subordinate clauses as an alternative to the...Read More...
Thank you for sharing, Chuncan Feng. I read the article and found it very interesting. Congratulations! Note: I saw a couple of typos you might want to correct in case you still have the chance to do so.Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

S + (has or have) + been + past participle

The problem is that there has been inadequate research and theory development to support the fast growing practice of scenario planning. S + (has or have) + been + past participle Why after “has been” the sentence does not follow with a“past participle” instead of an “adjective”?Read More...
Good day, Sir David! Could you please help me with this sentence: When I met Liza yesterday, it was the first time I (have seen, have been seen) her since Christmas. Thank you in advance.😇Read More...
Last Reply By James101 · First Unread Post

Was/Were

Hello, For conditional structure, why do we use "were" instead? e.g. If I were you, I would..... If he were to acquire the property five years ago, he would have become a millionaire.Read More...

A "Who are" vs. "Who is" question

Which of these is correct: You, who are noble yet vulgar. You, who is noble yet vulgar.Read More...
Hello, slimicee, and welome to the Grammar Exchange. Neither of your sentences is complete. Each is a sentence fragment. That said, "are" is correct, and "is" is not, since "you" is the antecedent of "who." We say "You are . . .," not " You is . . ."Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

’there is very little in the way of consumer needs’

Hello, everyone, “Pre-emption means that a strategy is designed to prevent a rival from starting some particular activity. In some case a pre-emptive move may simply be an announcement of some intent that might discourage rivals from doing the same. The idea of pre-emption implies that timing is sometimes very important — a decision or an action at one point in time might be much more rewarding than doing it at a different time point. Pre-emption may involve up-weighting advertising for a...Read More...
Sincerely appreciate your additional clarification, David, which has finally solved out all my questions related to this thread. My last one has been issued, since I've seen a British who said ' little in the way of' in a set is "quantifier".Read More...
Last Reply By deepcosmos · First Unread Post

Is there any semantic daylight at all between these two phrases?

I'm trying to use (2) as a paraphrase of (1), so I need to make sure that there's no semantic daylight between the two: (1) We can't be sure whether there's still an opportunity for diplomacy. (2) It’s uncertain whether there’s still an opportunity for diplomacy.Read More...
A paraphrase does not duplicate long strings of words from the text being paraphrased. (When we duplicate long strings of words, we are quoting, not paraphrasing, and quotation marks are required.) Summaries are for longer texts, but they are essentially paraphrases that leave out minor details.Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

an afternoon walk in the park and

Could one use a. He loves an afternoon walk in the park and a good late night movie. instead of b. He loves afternoon walks in the park and good late night movies. I am not sure (a) works. Doesn't it imply that the two things are somehow temporally connected? Many thanksRead More...

didn't know how

Are these sentences correct: 1) The man who had entered the party we didn't know how was now dancing with Jane. 2) The man who had entered the party we knew not how was now dancing with Jane. Gratefully, NaviRead More...
Hello, Navi—Both (1) and (2) are ungrammatical. You have violated "island constraints" (generative-grammar jargon) by trying to extract the subject of the embedded question and put it at the front of the sentence. To clean up the mess, put the subject of the embedded question back in its original position: (3) We did not know how the man who had entered the party was now dancing with Jane.Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

Can you say "as well that" or is it ungrammatical?

See the following (the issue is that you would have "as well that" if the dash-flanked part in bold were removed...not sure if that would be grammatical and I think that a sentence ought to be grammatical once a dash-flanked interruption has been removed): He refers to two 2021 remarks as well — one from a piece in Proceedings and one from a press briefing — that STRATCOM head Admiral Charles Richard made.Read More...
I agree with Gustavo that there is nothing ungrammatical about what you have written here. However, the sentence jerks the reader around a bit. You might consider streamlining your sentence like this. You'd have to scrifice an em dash. He refers, as well, to two 2021 remarks that STRATCOM head Admiral Charles Richard made—one from a piece in Proceedings and the other from a press briefing.Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

not only

Are these sentences correct: 1) Fielding was considered a great writer not only by Eliot. 2)Fielding was considered a great writer , not only by Eliot. I expect the 'not only...' phrase to be followed by 'but also...'. The sentences don't sound correct to me. Gratefully, NaviRead More...
Hello, Navi—I think f6pafd has an interesting perspective on the two sentences. My first instinct was to agree with you that the sentences aren't correct. However, considering the obviously correctness of the cleft sentence 1a) It was not only by Eliot that Fielding was considered a great writer. I realized that the problem with (1) is simply that you have presented it as a stand-alone sentece. In a live context, it would be followed by another sentence that would render it perfectly...Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

a pack of lions

Please read the following passage. A widespread use of math in nature makes sense,experts say, considering the challenges to survival in the wild. By recognizing which bush offers more berries, for instance, or which pack of lions is more fearsome, an animal might improve its own chances of survival. In thes passage, is it OK to use the phrase," a pack of lions ," instead of " a pride of lions " ? I have learned the phrase "a pack of" is used for "dogs" or "wolves," etc.Read More...
Hi, mmaassuu, What is normal to use is 'a pride of lions', as you have mentioned. Unlike 'a pride of lions', a pack of lions' has only three hits on COCA. So, it is quite clear that it is not common. However, sometimes, people forget a specific word and try to use any word that might convey their intended meaning. In one of our books, I once read 'a family of lions'. It works well and doesn't affect the meaning.Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

future simple or future perfect

I doubt you will (hear/have heard) of the place i come from. which option is correct and why? you will hear or you will have heard ...?Read More...
Hi, Lika, I would go with neither of them. The present perfect sounds the correct choice, not the future perfect. To use 'will hear', you will need a very special context.Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

'where' usage

1) We have to have done it enough times where if something is wrong, we know it. Source: https://books.google.com/books...ve%20done%22&f=false I came across that sentence by chance. I wonder if it is grammatical. "Where" has been used in it in a somewhat strange way, I'd say. I think I hear this kind of thing a lot. "Where" seems to be expanding its territory. Gratefully. Navi.Read More...
Hmmm - I find most replies quite strange: "We have to have done it enough times where if something is wrong, we know it." It seems to me to be a convoluted way of saying "We must have done it enough times for us to know if something is wrong" Anyway, sticking with the original sentence, the use of "where" is always incorrect if not used to specify a location. Substitute "that" for it: "We have to have done it enough times that, if something is wrong, we [would] know it."Read More...
Last Reply By Goudron · First Unread Post

Does syntax guarantee a certain interpretation when there's a "than" construction?

See here: The Clinton Doctrine was “more expansive than Bush’s NSS”, but it was “barely even reported”, since it was “presented with the right style” and “implemented less brazenly”. Regarding the two instance of "it" that come after I introduce a second doctrine (the one from W. Bush), I have to worry that it might be possible to link them back to the second doctrine instead of to the first one. But the second doctrine is mentioned in a "than" construction, so maybe there's a hard-and-fast...Read More...
Hi, Andrew, In my opinion, the first "it" needs to refer to the subject in the main clause because it appears within a coordinate clause (introduced by "but") and the second "it" needs to be identified with the same referent: For the second part of the sentence to refer to the second doctrine, there should be a relative clause or another deictic: The Clinton Doctrine was “more expansive than Bush’s NSS”, which was ... / but the latter was ... I don't see any problem with that: The Clinton...Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

How can I fix this awkward sentence?

See here (I wonder if a small adjustment could be made or if the whole sentence could be overhauled; I don't like the ambiguity where "with" seems like it could attach to "set out" when it's supposed to attach only to "develop"): Health Canada set out to develop—with scientists’ input and without industry influence—a new evidence-based food guide.Read More...
Hi, Andrew, "Set out to develop" does form a verb unit and it will be hard, if not impossible, to differentiate which verb certain adverbials attach to. Though a bit wordy, the only solution I can think of consists of using a deverbal noun to separate both verbs: Health Canada set out a new goal: the development, based on scientists' input and free from industry influence, of a novel evidence-based food guide.Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

Make or do

After I finish answering all the questions, I usually......a quick revision. A. do B. make C. sit D. fit This question appeared in longman Egypt The suggested answer is DO but I read that MAKE is correct too.Read More...
Hi, Treasure, Gustavo has given a very good answer to this question here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf.../do-or-make-revisionRead More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

Me and him as pronoun

Hello, Normally I would say: He and I often go for fishing on Saturday. However, I have heard people use "pronoun (e.g. him, her, them" at the beginning of the sentence. Is it grammatically correct? e.g. Me and him often go for fishing on Saturday.Read More...
Hi, Tony, No, it is not. You need to use subject pronouns here. 'Me' and 'him' are object pronouns.Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

‘ ... for a period before and during <when / which> ... ’

Hello, everyone, “Pre-emption means that a strategy is designed to prevent a rival from starting some particular activity. In some case a pre-emptive move may simply be an announcement of some intent that might discourage rivals from doing the same. The idea of pre-emption implies that timing is sometimes very important — a decision or an action at one point in time might be much more rewarding than doing it at a different time point. Pre-emption may involve up-weighting advertising for a...Read More...
Hi, Ahmed_btm, thanks for your opinion.Read More...
Last Reply By deepcosmos · First Unread Post

just as

Which are correct: 1) Just as he hates me, I hate him. 2) Like he hates me, I hate him. 3) As he hates me, so I hate him. 4) Just as he hates me, I hate him. Which mean: a) We hate each other and which mean b) We hate each other in the same manner (to the same extent) Gratefully, NaviRead More...

What's the difference between "envision" and "imagine"?

I think they have similar meanings. What's the difference between them? ThanksRead More...
Hi, Kimi, The main difference, I see, is that dictionaries relate 'envision/envisage' to something bright or a desirable possibility in the future. See Cambridge and Collins Dictionaries here: https://dictionary.cambridge.o...ary/english/envision https://www.collinsdictionary....ary/english/envisionRead More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

to lose the game

a. He made a mistake to lose the game. b. What mistake did you make to lose the game? I think in (a) he makes the mistake intentionally. Is that correct? Does (b) imply that the speaker thinks that the addressee made the mistake deliberately? I don't think it does, Many thanks.Read More...
Hi, Azz, I agree with you. I think adding the adjective 'deliberate' would make this meaning clearer. Not necessarily. This needs further context. For example, the addressee might have mentioned that he did make a deliberate mistake to lose the game. The speaker would automatically ask him, 'What do you mean?' or 'What mistake did you make to lose the game?'Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post
×
×
×
×