English Language Reference Desk

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the English Language Reference Desk, part of the English Language Department and the English as a second language program!

Please ask any questions you may have about the English Language, or how to use or pronounce it, here.

Add your question to the list, at the bottom of the page.

 On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 60 days old.

Archives: 2007 | 2008 | 2009

Contents

[edit] What distinction?

What distinction between these verbs

  • to struggle
  • to contend
  • to vie
  • to compete

Crux

Have you tried using a dictionary? Wiktionary has entries on struggle, contend, vie, and compete. All of these verbs are similar, but nuanced differently. "Struggle" strikes me as the broadest of the four: struggling can simply be acting with difficulty, or it could be fighting against something. "Contend" carries only the connotation of fighting against something (whether literally or figurativy), though, in certain circumstences it can also depict a vying. Vie and compete are near-synonymous words referring to an act of rivarly or competition. "Vying" is more archaic, and as such has a different flavour than "competing". There are also more subtle distinctions between the two based on centuries of idiomatic usage, but these are issues of nuance or accent, and not so much definition differences. Vying generally strikes me as more intense than competing, however. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, "struggle", to me, has a meaning of being unsuccessful, or at least less successful, than desired, or having to work harder to succeed. For example, the phrases "your child is struggling to keep up in school" and "he struggled to keep from drowning". StuRat 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which sentences are correct and do they mean the same?

  1. The house requires painting.
  2. The house requires to be painted.
  3. The house is required painting.
  4. The house is required to be painted.

Crux 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like a homework question. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:) Not exactly. I graduated from school many years ago. Now I study english on my own initiative.
By the way, what would be the problem if it was homework?
Crux 11:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
We're not supposed to do students' homework for them. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That is not a homework. I found some of that sentenses in Lingvo Grammar Dictionary, some of them in MacMillan English Dictionary. The sentenses from MacMillan Dictionary don't correspond to rules given in Lingvo therefore I decided to ask your opinion. It seems likely that Lingvo Dictionary dosn't embrace all cases of speech or went out of date. Crux 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't pay much attention to Lingvo, as machine translation software does a notoriously poor job of translating grammar. One simple test it to translate from language A to language B, then back to language A. If it's difficult to understand after this "round trip", it's probably at least half as bad after a one-way translation. StuRat 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like any of the sentences, since they suggest that the house is able to decide when it should be painted. I would prefer that a human (like "the landlord"), or rule (like "the housing association bylaws"), decide when painting is required. Of the sentences listed, I like the first and last best. However, "The landlord requires painting" gives me images of a landlord with two coats of latex paint on his body, so perhaps "The landlord requires that the house be painted" would be the best choice. :-) StuRat 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The only sentence which makes grammatical sense to me is the first, which I have no problem with. "The dishes need doing", "the house requires painting", "the lawn needs mowing", etc. This sort of construction is not uncommon. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about this?

  • His poems are now required reading on most literature courses.
It seems to me that this sentence resembles "The house is required painting". Don't you like this as well?
Crux 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The house is required painting" has a different meaning, to me. It might be OK to say "Painting the fence is optional, while the house is required painting", but it could still be said more clearly as "Painting the fence is optional, but painting the house is mandatory". Also, the sentence "His poems are now required reading on most literature courses" should use "for" instead of "on". StuRat 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"in" would also be acceptable. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which sentence is correct for my previous post?

  1. What would be the problem if it was homework?
  2. What would be the problem if it had been homework?
My sister offered the first option, but I believe that the second one is more appropriate.
Crux 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Both are "correct" in some sense, but are in different tenses. "Was" is the preterite past, whereas "had been" is in the perfect past. Now, frequently in modern English, the subjunctive is dropped entirely, and the present tense is used instead ("What would be the problem if it's homework?"). Assuming you intended to use the past subjunctive in your first sentence, you would say "What would be the problem if it were homework", except then your first clause ("what would be the problem" - present conditional) doesn't agree with your second clause ("if it were homework" - past subjunctive). You therefore would need to adapt your first clause to the past tense ("What would have been the problem if it were homework") or adapt your second clause to the present ("What would be the problem if it be homework?") Anyway, it's all rather complicated, especially as the subjunctive is going out of fashion today. Please see Wikipedia for the details. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subjunctive mood

Could you explain how you perceive the distinction between these sentences:

  1. What would be the problem if it be homework?
  2. What would have been the problem if it were homework?
  3. What would have been the problem if it had been homework?

How can I avoid the subjunctive mood, but to express the same thought?

P.S. Y'all, please, point out mistakes which I've made or I'll make in any phrases of mine.
Crux 23:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My only qualification to answer is that I'm a native US English speaker. With that in mind, 2 and 3 seem fine, but 1 seems old-fashioned or possibly poetic, not something I'd normally say, unless I was trying to sound like a pirate. Argggggh ! StuRat 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What about distinction between 2 and 3? Does it exist at all? How would you say in that case? Crux 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
They sound equivalent to me (although I'd substitute "was" for "were" in the 2nd sentence). By the way, please just use "edit" at the top of the question to add a comment, don't add a new subsection each time, unless you are adding a new, but related, question. StuRat 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the second is subjunctive (and would be indicative past if changed to "was"), and the third is perfect past. This is really a matter of usage, as both are used in English today, I'd say. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
One other comment: You used "Y'all" in your original post. I had assumed you were doing this to be funny, but, since English isn't your native language, maybe I'm wrong. So, just in case you don't know, "y'all" is slang from the Southern US (roughly the Confederate States in the US Civil War), and not generally accepted as proper English. StuRat 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this sentence correct?

Such entry shall in the register be denoted by an asterisk. Crux 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

First, it should be either of these:
"Such an entry shall, in the register, be denoted by an asterisk."
"Such entries shall, in the register, be denoted by asterisks."
Also note the added commas. Now, that's still a bit awkward, so I'd prefer this:
"Such an entry shall be denoted, in the register, by an asterisk."
Or, better still, this:
"Such an entry shall be denoted by an asterisk in the register." StuRat 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I would actually prefer "Such an entry shall be denoted in the register by an asterisk." (no commas) The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding use of the word "only"

I am creating an automobile website, and one page is about the w:Mercedes-Benz C-Class. What I am trying to say is that it is sold in certain markets with a saloon bodystyle, and no other.

This is the current sentence:

  • The Mercedes-Benz C-Class is sold as a sedan only in this country, with 2.3-litre 4-cylinder, 3.0 and 3.5-litre V6 engines. The wagon version is not sold here.

but should it be:

  • The Mercedes-Benz C-Class is sold only as a sedan in this country, with 2.3-litre 4-cylinder, 3.0 and 3.5-litre V6 petrol engines. The wagon version is not sold here.

If anyone could help me that would be much appreciated. AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my interpretation (leaving out the irrelevent bits, like the engine sizes):
"Sold as a sedan only in this country" means "the sedan is not sold in any other country".
"Sold only as a sedan in this country" is ambiguous.
"Only the sedan is sold in this country" means "no other model besides the sedan is sold in this country".
So, I'd go with the third form, and avoid the other two. But, to make it even clearer, why not use the bolded versions, which are absolutely clear ? Also, I assume you will explain which country is "this country" at some point. Remember, any web site will get hits from around the world, so it's best to list the names of nations explicitly. StuRat 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What I am trying to imply is that in New Zealand, the C-Class is available in just a sedan bodystyle. In the other paragraph of my article, I want to say it has a V6 engine, and no other, whilst using the word "only".

Thanks for your help so far, StuRat. AC --Sunstar NW XP 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to avoid ambiguous uses of the word "only". I'd just say "In Kiwiland, the C-Class is only available as a sedan and only with a V6 engine." StuRat 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that help, StuRat. AC. --Sunstar NW XP 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're quite welcome. StuRat 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] daunting

The new government faces the daunting challenge of completing the building on time.

What does 'daunting' mean? Could you find some synonyms for it. Crux 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

wikt:daunting. There you are. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to challenge someone on something

They’re not likely to challenge us on any of the details.

I suppose 'challenge' in this context is something like 'ask'. Thus this sentence could be restated as "They're not likely to ask us to explain some details (to them)". If I am not right, please explain to me a sence of 'to challenge someone on something' phrase. Crux 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Challenge rarely means "to ask". In this case, it carries the connotation of "disagree with". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Present Perfect Progressive

For ten years he has been fighting to prove his innocence.

Does this sentence mean that he has eventually proved his innocence? Crux 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. "he has been" is the perfect past continuous. It does not imply completion (for better or for worse). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] critics or criticism

Recent excellent results proved their critics wrong.

Is this sentence correct? I suppose 'critics' must be replaced with 'criticism'. Crux 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically, yes. Stylistically, no. The subject of "their" should be featured in the sentence for it to be stylistically correct—right now, we have "excellent results" where we're expecting to see whoever "they" are. This might be okay depending on the structure of the paragraph around it, but will come across as awkward if not. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I dare you.

Go on, phone the police. I dare you.

Does this mean "Hurry up, phone the police. I would like to see how you do it, because I believe you will not do it." ? Crux 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except for the "hurry up" part. "Go on" in this context is simply emphatic. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, instead of "I would like to see how you do it", it should be "I would like to see if you do it". Asking to see how someone does something implies that you don't know how and would like to learn. StuRat 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
What about "I would like to see whether you do it"? Is it used in informal speech? "If" in this case is intuitively hardly comprehensible for me, though I understood (thanks to you) it is a matter of course for English. Crux 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "whether" would also work. You could also rewrite the sentence more informally and avoid the use of either word: "I don't believe you'll really call". A couple other points:
1) In US English, we more often say we will "call" someone, instead of saying we will "phone" them. This is not true in British English, however, where "call" means to visit in person.
2) The "dare" in the original sentence carries with it an implied threat that something bad will happen to the person if they do call the police. This could be physical violence from the person issuing the "dare", or there might be other consequences, like the caller getting in trouble with the police. Note that a "dare" doesn't always carry an implied threat, though, as in "I dare you to kiss me". StuRat 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of English copulae

Why the verb "to act" is considered as a copula in the article List of English copulae? There is an example "Tom acted suspicious" which seems to mean that Tom's actions were suspicious because he acted suspiciously. Therefore "to act" expresses an action but not an association/equality of the subject with its predicate. I suppose "to act suspiciously" is a predicate itself, where "suspiciously" is an adverbial adjunct. Crux 13:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tom acted suspicious" means that Tom suspects something.
"Tom acted suspiciously" means that Tom's actions make us suspect him of something. StuRat 15:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"Tom acted suspicious" strikes me as ungrammatical, but that might just be me, and I do understand StuRat's parsing of it. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It turned out to be where I had told you

Ann: Do you know where the umbrella is?
Sasha: It's on the shelf.
Ann: I've already looked for there and haven't found.
Sasha: Ok, I'll do it by myself.
Sasha: Here you are. Take it.
Ann: Where have you found it?
Sasha: It turned out to be where I had told you.

Is it correct "It turned out to be where I had told you" ? Crux 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct, although I'd use the contraction "I'd", in place of "I had", and perhaps shorten it to "It was where I'd told you". Also, this statement could mean it was where Sasha was when he/she said where to look, so "It was where I'd told you it was" would be better.
Also note that "I've already looked for there and haven't found" is wrong in US English, but might be OK in British English. In the US it should be "I've already looked for it there and haven't found it". Let me rewrite the entire conversation the way I'd say it:

Ann: Do you know where the umbrella is ?
Sasha: It's on the shelf.
Ann: I've already looked there and didn't find it.
Sasha: Ok, I'll do it myself !
Sasha: Here it is, take it !
Ann: Where did you find it ?
Sasha: It was right where I told you it was.

One final comment, your question should be rewritten as :
Is "It turned out to be where I had told you" correct ? StuRat 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, "for there" in this context isn't correct in British English, either. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This dialogue is just my improvisation, but I've found the sentence "What are you looking for here?" in Lingvo. Is it also incorrect in both British English and US English? Crux 12:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That sentence looks fine to me. StuRat 16:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand—"to look for" always requires an object. In your example above "What" is actually the object of "look for": "You are looking for what here?" would be a (less natural) rephrase. You can say "I was looking for it here", but not "I was looking for here". You can also say "This is what I was looking for here"—note that "this" (or maybe "what") is the object in this case. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom sounded obnoxious

Tom sounded obnoxious

I've found it in the List of English copulae article. What does this mean?

  • Did Tom say obnoxious remark?
  • Was his voice obnoxious?
  • Did he break wind?
  • Did his name sound obnoxious(ly)?
It's rather ambiguous and could mean just about any of those (except perhaps breaking wind). For the last meaning, however, it would be '"Tom" sounded obnoxious', with the quotation marks added around "Tom". I'd think the first is most likely, though. There might also be a slight difference between this sentence and "Tom was obnoxious", as "Tom sounded obnoxious" implies that he isn't really that way, but only sounds so. Also, the first meaning should be written as "Did Tom make an obnoxious remark ?" and the "ly" should be left off the last meaning. StuRat 15:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that "Tom sounded obnoxious" implies that Tom has said several obnoxious things, otherwise it would be more natural to say "Tom's remark sounded obnoxious". I also think that "Tom sounded obnoxious" implies simply that Tom is coming across as obnoxious, with no statement as to whether or not Tom is normally obnoxious—I don't think there's a specific implication that he isn't obnoxious, but at the same time, neither is there an implication that he is obnoxious. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "with" modification

Tom acted suspicious.
Tom acted with suspicious.

Bill's smile shines bright.
Bill's smile shines with bright.

Which of these sentences are incorrect or does they mean the same? The sentences comprising "with" are very comprehensible to/for me in contrast to another ones. Crux 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The "with" sentences are wrong in their current form. They could be corrected as follows:

Tom acted with suspicion.
Tom acted with suspicious thoughts.

Bill's smile shines with brightness.
Bill's smile shines with bright ideas.

Also, "Bill's smile shines bright" would be better with "brightly".
Finally, let me correct the wording of your question:

Which of these sentences are incorrect or do they mean the same thing ? The sentences containing "with" are very comprehensible to me, in contrast with the others. StuRat 20:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What about "If it were possible to turn back the clock, he would do the same (thing)"? Is "thing" in this case strictly required? Crux 21:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Not always, no. "I'm going to leave and suggest you do the same" is an example where "thing" could be omitted. In your example, though, I'm not sure what "the same" means. Do you mean "If it were possible to turn back the clock, he would" ? StuRat 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is out of context, given as an example of the use of the word "same" in Lingvo. I consider that he would perform the same acts if he got one more chance. Crux 09:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If he hadn't ever turned back the clock before, I'd go with either "...he would" or "...he would do so". If he had turned it back before, I'd go with "...he would, again" or "...he would do so, again". I'd avoid using Lingvo to learn English grammar, since it doesn't seem very accurate. StuRat 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if I posed a question with one of these ways which would be correct?

  • Is "thing" word in this case strictly required?
  • Is word of "thing" in this case strictly required?
  • Is word "thing" in this case strictly required?

Crux 21:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd is almost correct, but it needs a "the" after "Is" and commas around "in this case". I also assume you meant to ask "which one of these would be correct", not "with one of these ways which would be correct". StuRat 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
What about this "if I posed a question with one of these options, which (option) would be correct?" ? Crux 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The part in quotes sounds good, except that you can leave the "(option)" part out. Also, the "What about this" part should either omit "this" of be followed by a colon (":"), with "if" capitalized. StuRat 15:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Which one of these sounds better to you?
  • Is the word "thing", in this case, strictly required?
  • Is the word "thing" strictly required in this case?
Crux 09:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Both sound "correct", but I prefer the second. I'd even probably prefer "In this case, is the word "thing" strictly required?" But that might depend on context. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] never + past simple

How do you perceive the distinction between these sentences?

  • He was never able to win her love.
  • He has never been able to win her love.

In my opinion "He was never able to win her love" means that he attempted to do that many times but always failed and probably he will attempt to do that again, while "He has never been able to win her love" means that he hasn't eventually achieved his aim and will never repeat it. Crux 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • To me, the first sentence seems to be a set-up for an "until".
  • He was never able to win her love. Then he won the lottery. Now he is has her love, but is never able to find his wallet. StuRat 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I interpret it somewhat along your lines, Crux: the first implies that he is done trying. The second implies that he has not yet succeeded, but is not necessarily done trying. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I remember(ed) doing smth

(Sasha is man hereinafter.)

Ann: Where are you going?
Sasha: I'm going to shop.
Ann: Ok. Just remember to buy apples.
. . .
Sasha: Here I am.
Ann: Have you bought apples?
Sasha: Yes, I have. They are in the bag.
Ann: I don't see no apples here.
Sasha: Really! You're right! But I remeber(ed) buying them.

Which option will be the most appropriate in this case?

  1. I remebered buying them.
  2. I remeber buying them.

Crux 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not #1, as Sasha is currently remembering. However, "I remember having bought them" would be preferable IMO to "I remember buying them", though both are "correct" to my ears. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] acquire a taste

I’ve never really acquired a taste for wine.

What does this mean: he has never drunk wine enough to fill its taste, never overdrunk wine or he doesn't like how wine tastes? Crux 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of those choices, I'd say the last one is the closest. However, saying "he hasn't acquired a taste" implies that he could grow accustomed to it's taste and even like it, if he drank it more often.
Also, "drank" is the usual past tense for "drink". The word "drunk" is sometimes used for a present tense, but "drunken" is more correct. The word "drunk" does have a meaning, though, it means to be inebriated from excess alcohol consumption (or something similar):
"I'd I drank too much, yesterday."
"I've drunken too much, today."
"I'm drunk."
"He's drunk with power."
Finally, "overdrunk" isn't a word at all. The phrase "overly drunk", however, might be used to mean "inebriated beyond the acceptable limit". StuRat 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think your first example meant to read "I drank", not "I'd drank". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I fixed it. Thanks. StuRat 07:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've found this difinition in Macmillan English Dictionary
drunk noun [count]
  • someone who has drunk too much alcohol or who regularly drinks too much alcohol
They've made use of "have drunk" in spite of your "have drunken". Is it due to the distinction of language dialects?
Here it is: 'overdrink'
Crux 11:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Technically, "have drunk" is Standard American and British English. However, you'll find that many Americans still use the archaic -en perfect ending, as in "have drunken", "have gotten", etc. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] difficult issues

Anne didn't shrink from the difficult issues facing parents.

What conclusion is more appropriate for this sentece?

  • To face parents with some matters was diffucult to do for her, though she did it.
  • She faced parents with the difficult problems.
  • She overcame her fear of consequences of facing parents with something.

Probably, I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "difficult issues". Is it difficult tasks, problems or difficult consequences which are caused by some acts (facing her parents)? Probably, I don't understand "facing parents". Does this phrase mean that she have just to meet parents or to face parents with something? Crux 12:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the context, it could mean that she is herself a parent and directly confronts the problems which are difficult for other parents to confront. It could also have the middle meaning you listed, say if she's a teacher who has to deal with parents. "Difficult issues" means "problems". "Facing parents" means confronting parents (which might include herself). StuRat 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Which one of these statements describes the phrase "didn't shrink from" in the context of the sentence above more precisely?
  • Sooner or later, all parents encounter problems, and Anne didn't escape the common lot, though she wished she escaped that.
  • All parents tend to disregard problems until they can afford it, but Anne inqure into any problem because she consider that as her parental duty.
Crux 17:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Those both sound weird in US English. The phrases "didn't escape the common lot" and "she wished she escaped that" sounds like British English, to me. The word "inqure" is misspelled, and the word "afford" isn't quite right, unless the problem has a financial solution. Either sentence could be fixed, however, as follows:
  • Sooner or later, all parents encounter problems, and Anne didn't avoid them.
  • All parents tend to disregard problems until they become serious, but Anne faced them immediately, because she considers that her parental duty. StuRat 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But which one is implied by the topic sentence? Crux 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd, I suppose, but it's so messed up that it's difficult to say. StuRat 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to fly someone

They offered to fly him to Brussels, but he declined.

What does "to fly someone" mean? I suppose there is a mistake in the sentence. It should to have been: "They offered him to fly to Brussels, but he declined". Am I right? Crux 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. "To fly someone" is to provide a flight for someone (usually to somewhere). I.e., they paid for his flight, and possibly purchased it themselves. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] job losses

It is evident that there will be some job losses.

"Job losses" means dismissions, doesn't it? Crux 16:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, though it could simply imply hiring freezes. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
1) The word is dismissals, not "dismissions".
2) Job losses at a certain company could be the result of firings/lay-offs, retirements, or simply by not replacing workers who leave, for whatever reason. Numerical job losses in a city, or wider area, are the result of more jobs lost than gained. It's also possible for a lower percentage of people to be employed in a geographic region because many people move into an area who can't find jobs. StuRat 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] an attitude problem

What we don't need is sombody with an attitude problem.

What is this: "an attitude problem"? Crux 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That means a bad attitude, meaning they are unpleasant. There's also the slang usage "he has an attitude", which means a bad attitude, as well. StuRat 13:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to credit with more sense

Surely you credit me with more sense than that!

Does this mean "you believe that I'm endowed with more sense than it really is"? I didn't understand the word "credit" in this context and "than that" (Than what?). Crux 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What "that" means would depend on the context, as follows:
"You think I ate the whole turkey myself ? Surely you credit me with more sense than that !" StuRat 04:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] finish up

  1. She eventually finished up in London.
  2. I alway finished up doing most of the work.

What do these sentenses sentences mean? I understood them as

  1. She eventually came to be in London.
  2. It always appeared that I accomplished the major portion of the work.

Am I right? Crux 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that you "finish" work and "accomplish" a goal; the two words aren't quite interchangeable. You also misspelled "sentences" (at least in US English). StuRat 03:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've finally found out it, but that was not so easy to me :-). Thanks. Crux 13:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] it appearing

We determined on the latter route, it appearing to be the shortest.

Is this construction "it appearing to be the shortest" correct? I suppose it should have been one of these:

  • it is appearing to be the shortest
  • it appears to be the shortest
  • it appeared to be the shortest

Am I right? Crux 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be technically correct as is, but it's a strange sentence I'd never use. I would say it more like this:
"We decided on the latter route, since it appeared to be the shortest." StuRat 04:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a perfect opportunity to use a semicolon: "We decided on the latter route; it appeared to be the shortest." To my ears, "We decided on the latter route, it appearing to be the shortest" does not sound wrong, however. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on the use of the semicolon here, as Jade's sentence could also mean "We decided on the latter route, and it consequently appeared to be the shortest". StuRat 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"it appearing to be the shortest" seems not a sentence because there is no a predicate, doesn't it? Crux 13:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll let The Jade Knight answer that, but I'll just say that "is no a predicate" should be "is not a predicate", or, better yet, "isn't a predicate". Also, instead of ending with "doesn't it ?", I'd end with either "correct ?" or "right ?" (casual). Finally, "seems not a sentence" sounds backwards in English; "doesn't seem like a sentence" would be normal. StuRat 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not a sentence, but is a dependent clause. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 14:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dependent clause

We decided on the latter route, it appearing to be the shortest.

I believe this sentence doesn't sound wrong for native english speakers, but still haven't understood why. This sentence seems to consist of the two independent clauses.

  • We decided on the latter route.
  • The latter route is appearing to be the shortest.

Each of these sentence can exist on its own, and still makes the same sense. But it's probably because I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "it appearing to". Is it appearing to him at the moment when he is pronouncing this sentence but neither before nor arter that? Crux 16:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As sentence on it's own, the 2nd would have to be written as "The latter route appears to be the shortest". And, the original sentence you have in block quotes does appear wrong to me, or at least clumsy. I'd have said "We decided on the latter route, since it appears to be the shortest". The "it appearing to" phrase, in this context, means it always has appeared shorter, currently does, and always will, as far as I can tell. StuRat 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
StuRat and I disagree on usage on this matter. However, "appearing to be" is unnecessarily long: you could equally say "it being the shortest" or "it appearing the shortest". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I say "We decided on the latter route which appearing the shortest"? And if so, is it necessary to use the comma before "which"? Crux 11:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You would have to change "appearing" to "appears", and yes, the comma is needed. StuRat 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One more question. How would you ask this: "And if so, is it necessary to use the comma before 'which'?" as a native speaker? Crux 11:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. I'd add a comma after "And", but it also works without one. StuRat 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
One other comment: In the initial question you didn't capitalize "english". It should be capitalized when talking about the language or people from England. When not capitalized, it means spin intentionally put on a ball to alter it's trajectory. StuRat 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't understood what "spin intentionally put on a ball to alter it's trajectory" means. Is it an euphemism? What is "spin"? Crux 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I literally mean that the ball in various sports is given a rotational velocity in order to change the path it follows, and this is called english. This is used in billiards and baseball, for example. StuRat 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to comply with

You are legally obliged to comply fully with any investigation.

I understand phrases like "to comply with regulations" or "to comply with one's wishes", but I don't uderstand what "to comply with investigation" means. Does it mean "to conduct investigation"? What is "investigation" in this context? Is it criminal investigation conducted by police or scientific research? Crux 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To "comply with an investigation" means to cooperate fully, answer all questions asked, and provide whatever is asked for by the person or people conducting the investigation. The investigation "wants" facts, so complying with the investigation means giving it the facts it "wants". --SB_Johnny talk 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Can this sentence be restated in "... to contribute fully to any investigation"? Would it mean the same thing? Crux 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's almost the same, but, to me, "comply" implies more of a reluctant participation, while "contribute" means willing participation. StuRat 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I would draw a slightly different distinction—for me, "comply with" implies passive cooperation, while "contribute to" implies active participation. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to conform

Part of her charm was her refusal to conform.

What does this sentence imply: "her refusal to comply with any regulations" or "her refusal to adapt to new setting"? Crux 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is meant more in the sense of "refusing to conform to social standards". An example might be a cattle-rancher's daughter who decides to be a vegetarian. --SB_Johnny talk 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/English_Language_Reference_Desk"
Personal tools