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

Profile: onsen
About
User Name: onsen
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, September 14, 2017
Last Visit: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:02:31 AM
Number of Posts: 380
[0.04% of all post / 0.62 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: good cause / in a good cause
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2019 7:53:50 AM
thar wrote:
Two different meanings, as shown in the definitions

1 reason for doing something;

cause - like "because".
With good cause - the reason you do it. You had a good reason for doing it.
He did it with good cause. He judged it was the best thing to do.
BY law, you are not allowed to fire an employee without just cause. (just = fair, justice). You are not allowed to fire an employee unless you have a very good reason for doing so, like they have done something very wrong.





2 countable an aim, belief, or organization


a cause - an ideal - a campaign, a charity, an organisation - something you are fighting for.
Give money to a good cause/ to good causes - donate to charity.
The campaign to save national monuments is a worthy cause.


Thank you very much, thar, for your reply.

My way of asking Q2. may not have been clear.
I made the following sentences by replacing the phrase 'in a good cause' with the phrase 'done in order to help people'.

a. But Will took it lying down – it is all done in order to help people, of course.
b. Hell, forgive and forget because it's all done in order to help people.
c. There speaks the nineteenth century: all gone, but done in order to help people.
d. There is no excuse for inflicting them on your fellow-citizens by saying it is done in order to help people.

Do the sentences a, b, c and d convey the meaning of the sentences A, B, C and D?
Or are the underlined parts getting along well with the rest of the sentences?

Topic: good cause / in a good cause
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2019 4:25:10 AM
Hello,

Quote:
cause n. (b) reason for doing something;
He did it with good cause.
(Harrap’s Standard Learners’ English Dictionary)


Q1. What does the 'good' in the phrase 'good cause' mean?
Does it mean 'reasonable'?


Quote:
cause 2 noun
3 [countable] an aim, belief, or organization that a group of people support or fight for
Please give generously – it’s all in a good cause (=done in order to help people).

in a good cause
A. But Will took it lying down - all in a good cause of course.
B. Hell, forgive and forget because it's all in a good cause.
C. There speaks the nineteenth century: all gone, but in a good cause.
D. There is no excuse for inflicting them on your fellow-citizens by saying it is done in a good cause.
(extracted from LONGMAN, cause)


Q2. Does the phrase 'in a good cause' in the sentences A, B, C and D mean 'done in order to help people'?
If otherwise, please explain the meaning of the phrase in each sentence respectively.

Thank you.
Topic: Going to the pub? / Coming to the pub?
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 10:57:51 AM
BobShilling wrote:
onsen wrote:

The same idea doesn’t seem to be applied to cases where 'go to the movies' or 'go to the zoo' are concerned.

It does.

If you ask someone whether they are going to any place, there is no implication that you are also going there, though you may be.

If you ask someone whether they are coming to any place, it is understood that you are going to that place. There is often a fairly strong assumption that you asking if the other person wishes to accompany or join you there


I see.
Topic: Going to the pub? / Coming to the pub?
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 10:16:23 AM
Sarrriesfan wrote:
onsen wrote:
Hello,

A. Going to the pub?
B. Coming to the pub?

Are A and B possible as sentences used for inviting someone to the pub?
How does one use them properly?

Thank you.


This is how I use them.

A.Going to the pub? This is used when the person you are asking may be going to the pub but the questioner is not.

B.Coming to the pub?The questioner is going to the pub and is asking if the other person wishes to accompany or join them there.


Than k you very much, Sarrriesfan, for your reply.

From your reply I understand A connotes the idea of 'without me=without the speaker' and B connotes the idea of 'with me=with the speaker'. Thus A is not an invitation while B is one.

The same idea doesn’t seem to be applied to cases where 'go to the movies' or 'go to the zoo' are concerned.
What divides them?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I suppose the chances of the sentence A being uttered are quite low because there’s almost no need to know about what one won’t participate in.
Topic: Going to the pub? / Coming to the pub?
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:01:36 AM
Hello,

A. Going to the pub?
B. Coming to the pub?

Are A and B possible as sentences used for inviting someone to the pub?
How does one use them properly?

Thank you.
Topic: Have you ever been/got struck by lightning?
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 9:31:00 AM
Hello,

Quote:
A. Have you ever been struck by lightning?
strike


I replaced the 'been' in A with 'got' and generated the sentence B.

B. Have you ever got struck by lightning?

How does one use the sentences A and B properly?

Thank you.
Topic: I can't be bothered
Posted: Thursday, May 2, 2019 9:24:36 AM
Hello,

Quote:
can’t be bothered (to do something)
I should really do some work this weekend but I can't be bothered.
bother


'I can't be bothered' is in the passive voice.
How can you change this sentence to one in the active voice?

Thank you.
Topic: He faced dismissal if he returned to Australia.
Posted: Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:55:41 AM
Thank you very much, Drag0nspeaker, for your replies so far.

Questions still remain.

About the sentence A

I found sentences similar to A. (the parts underlined)
Quote:
University of Queensland warned economist he faced dismissal if he continued with similar research into the attitudes of bus drivers
omitted
Frijters, an economist, was warned he faced dismissal if he carried out more similar research. But he fought the decision, which was subsequently overturned by the university’s lawyers and all formal allegations were dropped.
TheGuardian


Q1.
Do the following rewrites reflect the original text?
Are both 1 and 2 possible as rewrites of it?

1. University of Queensland warned economist, saying to the economist Frijters "You face dismissal if you continue with similar research into the attitudes of bus drivers."

or

2. University of Queensland warned economist, saying to the economist Frijters "You faced dismissal if you continued with similar research into the attitudes of bus drivers."

Q2.
Please explain why the writer didn’t write in the following way.

University of Queensland warned economist he would face dismissal if he continued with similar research into the attitudes of bus drivers
omitted
Frijters, an economist, was warned he would face dismissal if he carried out more similar research. But he fought the decision, which was subsequently overturned by the university’s lawyers and all formal allegations were dropped.

............................................................................................................


About the sentence B

Drag0nspeaker wrote:

He would face dismissal if he returned to Australia.
This uses the modal verb "would" in the first part and the subjunctive "returned" in the second part.
"Returned" is not actually a past tense - it refers to any time, past, present or future.
If he returned to Australia tomorrow or next year, he would face dismissal.


Q3.
Quote:
"Returned" is not actually a past tense - it refers to any time, past, present or future. ('past' underlined)

Then, is the following sentence correct?

If he returned to Australia last year, tomorrow or next year, he would face dismissal.

Q4.
What is the perfect version of the paragraph of He would face dismissal if he returned to Australia.?
My try is the following.

He would have faced dismissal if he had returned to Australia.
This uses the modal verb "would" in the first part and the subjunctive "had returned" in the second part.
"Had returned" is not actually a past tense - it refers to any time, past, present or future.
If he had returned to Australia last year, tomorrow or next year, he would have faced dismissal. ('last year' included)
Topic: He faced dismissal if he returned to Australia.
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 10:56:44 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


He faced dismissal if he returned to Australia.
This expresses a condition, but doesn't use the subjunctive mood.
It is in the past tense and refers to the past. If he returned to Australia (at some time in the past), at that time (in the past) he faced dismissal.



Thank you very much, Drag0nspeaker, for your reply.

Quote:
if
1. possible situations
You can use if to mention a situation that sometimes existed in the past. You usually use the past simple in the conditional clause.
They ate outside if it was sunny.
If we had enough money, we used to go to the cinema.

'sometimes' underlined
if


Though the word 'sometimes' makes me worried, the example sentence 'They ate outside if it was sunny.' is similar in construction to the sentence A.

Is my idea wrong?


Topic: He faced dismissal if he returned to Australia.
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 6:53:52 AM
Hello,

Quote:
A. He faced dismissal if he returned to Australia.
(Collins COBUILD, English Guides 1)


Q1.
Is the quoted sentence in the subjunctive?

Q2.
In what way is it different from the following sentence?

B. He would face dismissal if he returned to Australia.


Thank you.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.