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

Profile: BobShilling
User Name: BobShilling
Forum Rank: Member
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Joined: Sunday, April 1, 2018
Last Visit: Saturday, June 23, 2018 11:03:12 AM
Number of Posts: 215
[0.02% of all post / 2.56 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Trump is Taking Children from Parents Who Are Asylum Seekers
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2018 11:01:02 AM
FounDit wrote:
But entering the country without permission is exactly the same - legally. It is penetration without permission. No person is permitted to penetrate another without permission; it is illegal. Nor are they allowed to penetrate one's home or auto; that also is illegal. Penetrating the country without permission is also illegal.

You seem to be suggesting that attempting to enter a country without proper authorisation is as serious a crime as rape. An interesting way of looking at things.

Progressive Liberals want to pretend the real crime happens after the penetration, but being detained and sent back is not the crime. Showing up at the border and [i]penetrating the country without permission is the crime.

I don't think you will find many people, liberal or otherwise, who would deny that attempting to enter the country without authorisation is illegal. What people are protesting about is the inhumane and possibly illegal separation of young children from their mothers. Those protesting include not only your usual suspects, progressive liberals, but also an increasing number of Republicans.

Only a fool or someone who is willfully blind (or stupid) can fail to see that fact.


Topic: Fact Check. There was no law to separate families.
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2018 5:18:54 AM
Hope123 wrote:
The Left should be careful not to use this public empathy and goodwill for election purposes or to try to get real immigration reform done now.

Don't forget that a number of Republicans have expressed concern over the separation of children from their families.
Topic: could be the next threat that + a tense
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2018 4:56:34 AM
robjen wrote:
(1) The unknown virus could be the next threat that caused the people's worries.

I think that the alternatives suggested by leonAzul and NKM are fine, but the version with 'caused' is also acceptable, in my opinion.

Consider this sentence: If the next threat caused people to worry, it could/might be an unknown virus.
Here we have a normal second conditional/hypothetical future possibility sentence in which pass tenses effectively distance the likelihood of the situation. I think that the original conveys this idea.

Incidentally, I don't find the wording of 'the next threat that caused the people's worries' or 'the next threat cause people to worry', but that does not affect the tenses.
Topic: Which part of the day is dinner eaten?
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2018 4:42:19 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
When I was young (the 1950s and 1960s) we usually had dinner at school (and my father had dinner cooked in a canteen at work) at noon or some time near noon.
This was the big cooked meal of the day. There was also breakfast; tea (a small meal (sometimes just sandwiches, or a salad) after school/work; and supper (very small - maybe just biscuits/cake and cocoa) before bed. [...0

"Sunday dinner" was the big meal of the week - and was usually eaten in the very early afternoon (starting about 1pm).

It was very similar for me , a southerner. In addition, we sometimes had 'high tea' on Saturdays,a small cooked meal, typically beans/fried egg/sausages on toast rather than the normal bread and butter and jam plus a cake.

The midday meal at state school was always known as '(school) dinner' when I was a pupil and a teacher (1951-1998). Non-teaching staff who supervised pupils in the school canteen were known as 'dinner ladies'. I left England twenty years ago, so cannot claim to be familiar with current terminology.

I had my first 'dinner' (evening meal) when I went to a collegiate university in 1964. It was probably at the same time that my midday meal became 'lunch'.

I think I recall taking 'lunch' with me when I went to infant school, a couple of biscuits to eat in the morning break, though my sister thinks I imagined this.

Topic: Who is/are at the door?
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:16:08 PM
When interrogative 'who' is the subject of the verb, the verb is singular: Who is at the door?

However, in the following sentences with BE, the actual subject of the verb is the underlined NP, and the verb's form is decided by that:

Who am I?
Who are you?
Who is is that girl?
Who are those girls?
Topic: part of SpeecH
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:42:24 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
but the total number of undergraduates in 1960 was 22,000.
Possibly 4,000 studied English at undergraduate level.

And those people used the grammatical terminology that you learned; I did, too. I don't want the teachers of people who studied nearly sixty years ago (many of whom ended their studies at bachelor level) to dictate today the technical terminology of anything, anthropology, biology, chemistry, dentistry, English, forensic science, grammar, ... zoology, if it's based on decades-old materials.

The average textbook then was probably published in the early to mid 1950s, though some were undoubtedly older. You would not want seventy-year-old textbooks in other areas to be used in schools today, I imagine. Why do you want to freeze the grammar of English into a seventy-year-old system?

What about the 52,000,000 ordinary people who studied 'ordinary English Grammar' at school,

They studied the English grammar that was taught at the time, just as they studied the geography, history, mathematics, sciences, etc that were taught at the time.

and who then relied on dictionaries to define words?

Dictionaries are wonderful tools in everyday life. They are virtually valueless when it comes to specialist terminology in any field.

There's a major difference between academic theory, discussed by a few Dons, and the ordinary subject of "how people speak".

OK, and grammarians over the last half-century or more have concentrated on what people actually say and write rather than on what some experts claim they should say and write. In the UK at least, such rules as those concerning split infinitives, accusative whom, ending a sentence with a preposition, the shall/will future have been largely consigned to the dustbin. They were never observed except by a minority of speakers of one dialect.

Your 'few dons' are thousands of lecturers and professors in departments of English and of linguistics throughout the world for several decades now.

Ordinary citizens discuss such things as word classes and phrases/clauses as infrequently as they discuss philosophy or quantum physics. They don't need to know what a determiner (or determinative, if you prefer) is, and 99.99% of them will never need to define clause. But students who study grammar, and their teachers need to be aware of the terminology used today.
Topic: would vs will
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:12:16 AM
palapaguy wrote:
I think "will" is correct and should replace "would."

I agree. 'Would' appears unnatural to this speaker of BrE.
Topic: Infinitive Clause vs. Infinitive Phrase
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:28:37 PM
NKM wrote:
I'm not inclined to accept anybody's opinions (other than my own, of course!) as established truth.

I feel the same.

I do not agree with the some of the opinions of some modern grammarians on the topics we discuss. What I try to do in these discussions is explain why I agree with some of the more widely accepted views. When I say 'widely accepted', I mean just that, at least in the university departments of English and Linguistics in the UK.

I do not present them as truths. Ideas on grammar have changed and developed since Sanskrit grammarians started sharing their ideas some two and a half thousand years ago, and will continue to do so. Increasingly larger computer corpora (The iWeb Corpus has fourteen billion words) and ever more sophisticated programs for analysing texts will inevitably lead to fresh insights.
Topic: part of SpeecH
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:34:55 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
OK - I haven't read all the "latest and greatest" linguistic philosophies and theories.

Perhaps you should try some. Most of the books I have mentioned in my posts were on lists of prescribed books for students on undergraduate courses in English in most British universities with a year or so of their first appearance.
Topic: part of SpeecH
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:28:37 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
The difficulty here is simply our meanings for 'part of speech' and a few other terms like that.

This is how I learned English and grammar.

I learned something similar, but I left school in 1964 and university in 1967, a long time ago

A lot has changed since then, though I see that attributive nouns were recognised in 1965:

Nouns can be attributive, i.e, fill a position in which the adjective is very often found, but there is generally a difference in stress of the two types of combination; compare a town house. with primary stress on town and secondary stress on house with an old house, in which both old and house have a primary stress. If we take stress as a criterion, we note a transition to full adjective in such cases as: choice fruit, the chief news, head waiter, etc. In further illustration of the difference between substantival and adjectival elements used attributively, we may consider some cases where they have the same form: a ˈFrench ˌmaster (= a teacher of French, French being a noun) as against a ˈFrench ˈmaster [...]

Schibsbye, Knud (1965), A Modern English Grammar

So, fifty three years ago, Schibsbye would have said that the words I have underlined in your sentence The orange-crate was sitting near the apple-barrel and the banana-box were nouns.

Since writing above the, I have discovered that the same points were made eleven years earlier by A S Hornby in his A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English (1954), and twenty-one years before that by Otto Jespersen in his Essentials of English Grammar (1933)

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