All Topics

"Throw something back AT someone" has one meaning in which the connotation is hostile. The thrower is hoping to hit the person with an object, or with words, figuratively. Examples from Google: "¢ Florida, DOC, prison, Frank Valdes, trial The couple stop on the road in front of us, the man driving asks for a flyer,only to throw it rudely back at us. He drove off squealing tires and screaming ... http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/prison/wewerethere.html "¢ The Overland Expedition of The Messrs.Read More...

Jessicah, just in case you wish to read more on this topic: "Constructions with to-infinitive or of-phrase": see Section 17.36 in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Lanuage (Quirk et al, 1985, pp 1272-1274).Read More...

I'd like to add a different response to Rachel's answer about Sentence 2, "Carson was a scientist who wrote "Silent Spring." Rachel wrote: "Yes, (2) is wrong for the reason you state: "a scientist" would mean that she was one scientist among others who wrote "Silent Spring."" I see Sentence 2 as correct"” in the appropriate context . Its acceptability depends on the amount of background knowledge of the intended reader. Sentence 1, with "Carson was the scientist who...," tells us that, out...Read More...

It is not actually "incorrect" to use normal question order in embedded questions, but it is noteworthy. In general, normal question word order is not used, but may be if the embedded question is long. Normal question word order is sometimes used regionally too. R.W. Burchfield says this, in Fowler's Modern English Usage*: '" A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) distinguishes two main types of indirect questions: (a) wh-questions, e.g. I asked him when he would be 65...Read More...

"For the last two years" and "for the past two years" have the same meaning: these expressions measure the time of something that has happened or has been happening during the most recent two years, and is still happening. The tense is not correct in your sentences. "For" + a time expression goes with the present perfect or present perfect progressive. The correct sentences are: I have known him for the last two years. I have known him for the past two years. RachelRead More...

"Take account of something" means to consider something when you make a decision or assessment.* Experiment finds schizophrenics do not take account of visual contexts. Print this article · Link to this article. Highlight: ... http://www.newstarget.com/012783.html - 23k Irriguide: An irrigation scheduling system to take account of ... Irriguide: An irrigation scheduling system to take account of variable rainfall, soil texture and cropping pattern. RJ Bailey, ADAS, Gleadthorpe Land ...Read More...

The Grammar Exchange has a great many posts on this topic. You'll find two informative posts in the Grammar Exchange Archive that deal with these differences. More than that, you can access many relevant posts if you click on "Find" in the Menu on the Questions and Answers page, and type in "present perfect progressive." This search term will bring up postings on the present perfect simple as well as the present perfect progressive. If, after reading these posts, you have any further...Read More...

"Can" is the appropriate modal in this sentence. "Could" is more tentative than "can." "Could" is the conditional of "can," and makes the verb more tentative. If the sentence contained "could" instead of "can," the sentences would be: I know you could do it if you wanted to... I know you could do it if you wanted to. James is expressing confidence in Mr. Clinton. By using "could" instead of "can," he would be expressing the idea that Clinton might do what he's asking if something else were...Read More...

I've never heard or heard of the phrase "step off the carpet." A bit of searching on Google has turned up a meager amount of information, some of it supporting the meaning "get married," but only the single citation from Yuri's query illustrating "die." The Online English Turkish Dictionary at http://www.seslisozluk.com/?word=evlenmek ...has this series of glosses for the Turkish word "evlenmek": 1. marry. get married. wed. make a match. espouse. lead to the altar. change one's condition.Read More...

Thanks to Chuncan Feng for bringing up the frequency – or lack of frequency – with which "years back" is used. Indeed, "years back" appears much less frequently than "years ago." Google shows 6,860,000 example of "years back," but 199,000,000 of "years ago." Similarly, the New York Times Archives (from 1981 to the present) shows 2,377 examples of "years back" and 216,309 of "years ago." "(Time) back" is less frequent, and to some, less formal, but it is useful and not incorrect. RachelRead More...

"Start off on" means "begin to work on something." "Start up in" means "begin a career, a working life." These are intransitive verbs. Each of the verbs can also be transitive: you can start someone off on an activity and you can start someone up in a job or career. These definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (1975).Read More...

"Settle" and "settle up" are used for the action of arriving at a fair accounting of a monetary or other transaction. Sometimes it involves paying a debt, and sometimes it involves just calculating who should pay what. Sentence 4 illustrates a slightly different meaning: "arrive at an agreement." Sentence 2, which has a non-literal implication, is special and will be addressed below. "Settle" and "settle up" both mean "pay a debt." "Settle" alone also means "reach an agreement." Here are...Read More...

Actually, neither works. The first sentences are ambiguous. They might not be understood outside of this discussion. The second sentences might possibly be uttered in a conversation like this: A: I'm really sorry about Jack, Kate. I understand he died because he couldn't find any drinking water. B: Oh, Harry – he didn't die for lack of drinking water! He had some horrible moments, but he is alive and well today, I'm happy to say. But, even Sentence B is not all that natural. It would be more...Read More...

The distinctions between the two utterances are not simple. "That will do!" is different from "That will do." "That won't do" means something different still. "That will do" has two meanings, depending on the context and the way it's uttered. Envision two different scenarios. In the first, positive, scenario the speaker is expressing approval of something, saying that it meets requirements (Google examples): "”Danson returned carrying a large blanket. "Oh, good. That will do until we find...Read More...

The sentence is contained in a letter from someone named Castelli, reporting on a debate in which he was obliged to participate: "There, after having made suitable disclaimers, I commenced to play the theologian with such assurance and dignity that it would have done you good to hear me. Don Antonio assisted me, giving me such heart that instead of being dismayed by the majesty of their Highnesses I carried things off like a paladin ." The incident involved argumentation about a theological...Read More...

"Whether" is, as you note, a subordinating conjunction. It introduces an adverb clause. "Either" is a coordinating conjunction. When used as a conjunction, it introduces the first of two coordinates; "or" introduces the second coordinate. _______ This is the entry for "either" as a conjunction in the American Heritage Dictionary*" " either conj. ... Used before the first of two or more coordinates or clauses linked by or: Either we go now or we remain here forever ." ______ So, "either" as a...Read More...

The perfect infinitive "to have loved" is correct. If you are in a theater watching a film and you see someone obviously enjoying it, you can say "They seem to love it." From your point of view, there in the theater, that's "right now." The cartoon, on the other hand, shows an older couple waiting in line to see a film, and a young, flamboyantly dressed couple leaving the theater, having seen the movie. The older couple are taken aback by the obvious pleasure on the faces of the young...Read More...

The first version is not good style, since it repeats the noun "finding" for no good reason. The second version is very natural, although I've found only one example of "this finding is a robust one." From Google: We have argued that this finding is a robust one , largely independent of the precise set of hosts measured, and applying to datasets taken across a ... http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~savage/papers/Sigcomm99.ps Examples abound of the construction with other predicate adjectives. I've...Read More...

"More" governs "explicitly." The sentence could be paraphrased as "They confirmed the hypothesis that non-U.S. violent agents are represented as unambiguously violent, whereas U.S. agents are represented as possibly somewhat ambiguously violent." If "more" were to modify "violent," the sentence might read: "They confirmed the hypothesis that non-U.S. violent agents are represented explicitly as more violent (as opposed to less violent) than U.S. agents are." Yes, the rule of proximity...Read More...

Sentence 1 is not English. The expression in English is either "” Don't talk with your mouth full OR "”You shouldn't talk/speak with your mouth full ...both of which concern proper table manners. Such admonitions sare usually uttered to a child by an exasperated parent. Sentence 2 is not native English, either. My searches on Google have turned up quite a few examples of "speak with full mouth," but they seem to have been written by speakers of languages other than English. The expression in...Read More...

These are correct: a) She runs a lot. (NOT She runs a lot of / She runs lots of) b) She runs a lot of hours. c) She runs lots of hours. In a), "a lot" describes how often she runs. It is correct, even though it is not specific about the number of hours she runs. In b), "a lot of hours" also describes how often she runs. It is more specific. Sentence c) is like Sentence b). _______ You use "of" with a lot when there is an object for the preposition "of," in this case "hours." If there is no...Read More...

The phrase "little effort and even less success in..." covers both "documenting" and "explaining." If the writer had meant to link "effort" to "documenting" and "success" to "explaining," the sentence would have read the way you wrote it. That would be correct but was not the intention of the writer The coordinator "or," incidentally, is used instead of "and" (which would also be possible) because the quantifiers "little" and "less," being negative in content, allow "or." MarilynRead More...

1. Greater efforts need to be focused on the media's potential for preventive programming or reporting. The writer could have used "and," thereby lumping both activities together as a unit. Apparently the writer saw enough qualitative difference between "programming" and "reporting" to separate them with "or." 2. ...Phillips, whose research consistently found a strong relationship between reports of suicide in newspapers or on television and subsequent increases in the suicide rate The...Read More...

The American Heritage Dictionary* states that "sweepstakes" is used with a singular or a plural verb.: sweep"¢stakes pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) 1. A lottery in which the participants' contributions form a fund that is awarded as a prize to one or several winners. 2. An event or contest, especially a horserace, the result of which determines the winner of such a lottery. 3. The prize won in such a lottery. So, one concludes that "sweepstakes" can be singular – thus, "this...Read More...

None of the sentences is grammatically correct. Sentence 1, with altered punctuation, would, however, be correct: "”Since they started living together in 1995, their life as a couple has been interrupted "”from 1999 to 2001"” because of John's illness. Putting the dates of the interruption between dashes makes that information parenthetical and thus not an integral part of the main clause. Sentence 2: when the point of time is specified, as it is here ("in 1995") the verb must be in the...Read More...