Skip to main content

August 2022

PAST HABITS

Could you kindly correct my answers? TASK A: 1. C 2. A 3. B 4. B 5. A Thank you in advance NB: you can find the task in the attached picture below.Read More...

Is the bold grammatical?

The financial sector’s “salaries and bonuses” attract “many of our country’s best young mathematicians and physicists”—these talented graduates’ education “has been paid for mostly by either government funds or university endowments”, but activity related to what securities prices are doing “within a nanosecond time frame” adds “little to the financial system’s ability to perform any of its economic functions”.Read More...
1: Does context help to explain the meaning? https://join.substack.com/p/waste 2: How might I rework the sentence to be less awkward? I suppose that I created quite an awkward sentence.Read More...
Last Reply By Andrew Van Wagner · First Unread Post

'that' in 'the first time that S V'

Hi (a) It is the first time that we have met. (b) That was the first time that she had traveled alone. (c) Yesterday was the first time that Ted swam in the Atlantic Ocean. In the sentences above, Q1) Can we change the bold 'that' into 'when'?(in terms of grammaticality) Q2) Can we change the bold 'that' into 'in which' or 'at which'?(in terms of grammaticality) Q3) What is the bold 'that' called in grammatical terms? I am curious about its grammatical identity. Is it a 'relativiser' or a...Read More...
Thank you very much for your persuasive analysis, which brought me to see the subtle difference between the two types of sentences.Read More...
Last Reply By f6pafd · First Unread Post

Does the bold assume a significant amount?

This isn't a grammar issue, so feel free to bring the hammer down on me for this, but you'll note that the bold assumes a significant amount, so I just wonder if this is common in writing (the assumption here is that the financial sector's size has been reduced in a way that eliminates WASTE but doesn't harm the financial sector's actual economic functions; if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be "all the better" for people to not be going to Wall Street): Excessive leverage appears to be...Read More...

interest in the property

Are the following sentences grammatically correct? The objection deals with issue arising from the transfer of her 1/8 interest in the property of 1 Newyork Street California to her mum. versus The objection deals with issue arising from the transfer of 1/8 of her interest in the property of 1 Newyork Street California to her mum.Read More...
Hi, Tony, Both sentences are wrong in that "issue" needs an article. You could simplify the beginning of the sentence by saying: The objection is related to the transfer ... That said, the two sentences above are completely different in meaning. In the first one, "she" had a 1/8 interest in the property. If the property was worth, for example, $800,000, she owned and transferred $100,000. (In this sentence, "one-eighth" is adjectival, as it modifies "interest.") In the second sentence, she...Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

Can the bold refer to a non-100% amount?

See bold (the issue is that what was at stake wasn't taking away 100% of the corporate sector's profits...rather there were SOME profits at stake): https://join.substack.com/p/domination There was more at stake than just profits —people were questioning whether top-down business control was even legitimate.Read More...

Can "on the grounds" attach to multiple things?

E.g., can you say this: He opposed the proposal on the grounds that it was unethical, wasteful, and racist. My actual sentence is this: Corporate propaganda has instead attacked these things on the grounds that they “reduce the ‘freedom’ of the individual, restrict ‘initiative’, or hamper ‘free’ enterprise”.Read More...
Hi, Andrew—I don't see any problem with your using "on the grounds" to refer to multiple reasons. All of the reasons that follow "that" are understood to be included.Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

Is the bold better than past tense?

I have an instinct to go with the bold instead of "responded": https://join.substack.com/p/domination The book documents how “business leaders waged a strategic, ideological campaign at the workplace and within the community to recapture the hegemonic authority they thought the New Deal and the new unionism had so catastrophically disrupted”—this campaign was responding to a situation where attitudes were so anti-business that “one postwar survey” showed that “nearly half of all workers...Read More...
Hi, Andrew, I think you want to use the past progressive to provide some kind of background for the preceding verb phrase ( waged a campaign... ), while the past simple could indeed be interpreted as referring to a subsequent situation. Personally, I would prefer "this campaign was in response to ..." because I don't like the continuous with a non-personal subject like "campaign" since it emphasizes the sense of an action.Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

Stylization of the bold?

See here: In terms of The Squad , I don’t hear as much about them now that they’ve been around for a little bit. The NYT seems to do it like this: "the squad" And Wikipedia (see the above link) seems to go back and forth between the Squad [no quotation marks] and The Squad [no quotation marks]Read More...
Thanks! I appreciate this help!Read More...
Last Reply By Andrew Van Wagner · First Unread Post

Is there any difference between them?

Hi, Do have a run-in with the law and break the law mean the same thing? If so, do they mean the same in these sentences below? If not, what's the difference between them? 1.He had repeated run-ins with the law for theft. 2.He repeatedly broke the law against theft. Thank you very much.Read More...
I mean things like getting pulled over by the police, being fined, being put in jail, being executed, being put on a watch list, being investigated, etc., etc., etc. Sentence (1) works, but (2) is rather awkward. It would be more natural to say something like "He repeatedly broke the law by stealing."Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

Is the bold OK?

The bold seems like it might be awkward or unclear: S how the elected official why they were wrong to vote for a bill—sometimes they already know that they messed up—and give them an “exit strategy” that allows them to kill or neuter the bill without having to publicly admit that they messed up .Read More...
Thanks!Read More...
Last Reply By Andrew Van Wagner · First Unread Post

Hypothetical sentence

"What would you want to find out about a group of learners that you had to teach so that you could plan your lessons?" This is a sentence from a pre-course task for students of CELTA course. It is clear that the sentence is hypothetical, but is it possible to use 'would have to teach' as an alternative to 'had to teach'? What if 'had to teach' is interpreted as a real past tense? Then the sentence becomes partly hypothetical. ThanksRead More...
Hi, DT—It wouldn't make sense to interpret the sentence that way; so, although it is possible to interpret it thus, it is unlikely that anybody ever would.Read More...
Last Reply By David, Moderator · First Unread Post

OK to use bold to refer way backwards?

The bold word refers way backwards to something that comes before the preceding ("And you can do the same...") paragraph; is that OK? It’s an important first step to make sure that you know who your elected officials are at all levels. Just go to that neat website that you mentioned —that site will tell you who your state legislators and federal legislators are. The more local an elected official is, the easier it is to get their attention—contrary to popular belief, officials actually enjoy...Read More...
Thanks so much! I greatly appreciate the help on this front!Read More...
Last Reply By Andrew Van Wagner · First Unread Post

Is the tense in bold advisable?

I use the bolded tense (not sure the term for it...it's sort of like a substitute for the PRESENT TENSE but I'm not sure its semantical implication or semantical valence) a couple times in my upcoming piece about lobbying: And grassroots organizing is down to a science in many areas—many grassroots campaigns will know everything there is to know about voters and will deploy a scary amount of data in order to pander to voters in any which way. See here another example: But these things...Read More...
Great! Thanks!Read More...
Last Reply By Andrew Van Wagner · First Unread Post

What’s the meaning of ‘a harder hand’ in the context?

I don’t understand the meaning of ‘a harder hand’ in the following: “A person who overcame not just the external obstacles to success but mastered themselves and their emotions along the way That's much more impressive. The person who has been dealt a harder hand, understood it, but still triumphed? That's greatness.” Could you please explain the meaning?Read More...
Hello, David. Thank you so much for welcoming me kindly. I appreciate the valuable comment you made about how to ask a question. I have seen the paragraph from a book which is about philosophy. Your explanation has made great sense to me, so I understand clearly. I appreciate your help.Read More...
Last Reply By Wateriswhat · First Unread Post

Confusion about using past continuous and simple tenses

Dear Sir, please have a look on both the attached photos and tell if the two sentences are grammatically accurate or not. Also if I said “ from 9 to 11 yesterday, I watched a movie or I was watching a movie “ which tense should be used here the simple or the continuous and why? the two attached photos are from different resources. thanks alot.Read More...
Hi, Mahmoud and Ahmed, The progressive also emphasizes the ongoing nature of the action and may indicate that the action was not completed: - I was watching a movie from 9 to 11 yesterday. (Perhaps the movie lasted longer than 2 hours.) - Tom was washing the car from 4 to 6. (Perhaps he did not finish washing it and went on to do something else after 6.) Instead, the simple form makes clear that the action was completed: - I watched a movie from 9 to 11 yesterday. (The speaker saw the entire...Read More...
Last Reply By Gustavo, Co-Moderator · First Unread Post

When + -ing form

Is it OK to say "When opening the door, I saw a snake."? Is this use of "when + -ing form" which refers to a past action mentioned in any grammar reference? If it is OK, what is the difference between the sentence above and the following sentence: On opening the door, I saw a snake?Read More...
Hi, Omar, It could work if you mean to say 'While I was opening the door, I saw a snake.' 'When + v.ing' can also be used with repeated or habitual actions. This means 'As soon as I opened the door, I saw a snake.' From 'Longman Dictionary Of Common Errors', page 356: × × × When hearing that the child had been found, she burst into tears. √√√ On hearing that the child had been found, she burst into tears. "To show that two things happen at the same time or that one thing happens immediately...Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post

Present perfect with since

In ( Cambridge Grammar today) The writer used the present perfect after since with the verb (moved ) though it was not repeated,it happened once. 1- They haven't received any junk mail since they moved house. 2- They haven't received any junk mail since they have moved house. Is it ok to use a non repeated verb in the present perfect after since? Thanks in advanceRead More...
Hi, Ahmed Towab, From 'A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language', page 1018: " The present perfective may also be used in the pattern It + Be + time expression, when there is no explicit indication of point in time, such as last : - It has been a long time since I've seen Gerlad (cf: I haven't seen Gerlad for a long time). The present perfective is similarly used occasionally for other since clauses that refer to a point of time, eg: I've been lonely since you've left." In your...Read More...
Last Reply By ahmed_btm · First Unread Post
×
×
×
×