The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: maltliquor87
About
User Name: maltliquor87
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Last Visit: Sunday, December 9, 2018 1:54:35 PM
Number of Posts: 159
[0.02% of all post / 0.42 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: "it took an additional five centuries"
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:06:53 AM
Thanks, Thar.
Topic: "it took an additional five centuries"
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2018 6:13:18 AM
Ozok, thank you for pointing that out.
Topic: Is "turned into" correct here?
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2018 2:03:26 PM
Here's a link to interesting article that is somewhat relevant to the question: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/01/turn-into.html.

It discusses some legitimate use of "turn into", as in "a driver turns into a driveway". But it has this to say when "turn in" is a phrasal verb:

Quote:
And when “in” is part of a phrasal verb, it’s always separate, even if “to” comes right after it. Examples: “The pistol was turned in to a police officer” … “The pistol was turned in to make sure it didn’t fall into the wrong hands.”
Topic: Is "turned into" correct here?
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2018 1:41:08 PM
I think it should be "in to".

I'm a non-native speaker, of course.
Topic: "it took an additional five centuries"
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:38:21 AM
I would have expected to see neither article. It's a bit unusual to see an indefinite article before the part "additional five centuries" because an indefinite article is normally related to a noun in its singular form. In our example, the noun ("centuries") is in its plural form. If we remove the adjective "additional", then the article will be out of place

Quote:
It took five centuries to overthrow that medieval imperium in favor of Renaissance and Enlightenment values.


If we put the adjective "additional" back in the sentence, the article appears again.

Quote:
It took an additional five centuries to overthrow that medieval imperium in favor of Renaissance and Enlightenment values.
Topic: "it took an additional five centuries"
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2018 9:58:53 AM
Hello, dear forum members.

Here's a sentence written by a native speaker.

a)
Quote:
It took an additional five centuries to overthrow that medieval imperium in favor of Renaissance and Enlightenment values.


Is it normal practice to use the indefinite article before the word "additional" followed by some number and a noun? I know that the article "a" is used before the word "full" followed by some number and a noun, as in the sentence "b". But to my recollection, I've never before encountered the article "an" used before the word "additional" in such contexts.

b)
Quote:
Darwin's close friend Lyell held back his support for the theory a full nine years and then hinted at a modified version with providential design behind the whole scheme.


Thanks in advance.
Topic: Mixed up, muddled up
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:10:35 AM
Thanks, Romany.

By the way, I like this phrase: "wriggled itself into the language".
Topic: Mixed up, muddled up
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 3:56:54 PM
I appreciate Wilmar's comment very much. As a native speaker of American English, he's confirmed that the "got" part can be dropped. So there's no area of disagreement here.

Where some disagreement lies is in the question of whether leaving "have got" intact represents some sort of linguistic abomination. Drago finds this usage unexceptionable, so would many speakers of British English, I suspect. If there's any divide when it comes to using this construction in conversation, it runs primarily along varieties of English rather than along levels of education.
Topic: "(a/the) name for a child
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 5:23:07 AM
Thanks, Thar!
Topic: Mixed up, muddled up
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 4:04:38 AM
I think Wilmar was being a little bit judgmental when he said that using "have got" would make you sound like you never advanced beyond 6th grade . I've heard eloquent and educated speakers of British English use "have got" in their speech. On the other hand, Americans don't seem to use it very often. But when they do use it that also sounds fine.

I wasn't sure about those specific examples.

Thanks everyone.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.