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

Profile: Pandion haliaetus
User Name: Pandion haliaetus
Forum Rank: Newbie
Occupation: gentleman at large
Interests: submarine forces of the navies
Gender: Male
Home Page
Joined: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Last Visit: Sunday, June 17, 2018 10:06:52 PM
Number of Posts: 9
[0.00% of all post / 1.50 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: We must help others in the same way as/that our parents help other people.
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:57:26 PM
Koh Elaine wrote:
We must help others in the same way that our parents help other people.
We must help others in the same way as our parents help other people.

Which of the above sentences is the correct one?


With that, the sentence should run We must help others the way that our parent do. Because we imply here no sense of comparison (we just define the way we should lead), the same seems superfluous. If we are about to use the same, the we need something to which this same could be compared: We must help others the same way as our parents use to do. Nicht wahr?
Topic: via or by
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:20:30 PM
Koh Elaine wrote:
Police said they were alerted to the incident – which occurred after the Mandai Road exit in the direction of the Pan Island Expressway (PIE) – at 4.40am. A 46-year-old male taxi driver was conveyed in a conscious state via ambulance to the Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, the police added.

Shouldn't it be "by" instead?


The original Latin noun via reads a roadway. Both variants are applicable for they denote one and the same manner the poor one was conveyed: you can either say that the taxi-driver was taken to the hospital via ambulance, or he was taken there by means of ambulance, or by ambulance alone.
Topic: Is the full stop needed to end the sentence?
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:06:52 PM
Audiendus wrote:
NKM wrote:
The comma is optional; the full stop is needed.

I agree. (I myself would leave out the comma.)

Or you may leave out the qoutation-marks altogether, with the comma after phrase, the first letter of which should be retained capitalized throughout the variants. The full stop is oligatory.
Topic: Do you need "that"?
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 8:33:55 AM
robjen wrote:
(1) The training program helps you learn the skills that you need for your next job.

(2) The training program helps you learn skills you need for your next job.

I made up these sentences myself. This is what I think about whether or not you need "that".

You use "that" when you have the definite article "the" for talking about "the specific skills" as in (1).

In (2), when there is no "the" for talking about skills, "that" is not needed.

Can someone explain when you need "that"? Thanks a lot.

The explanation why the that can be omitted is such: the skills that you need is the so called defining relative clause (the British term for the attributive relative restrictive clause). Its antagonist, the non-defining relative clause (attributive relative non-restrictive clause) sounds as: The skills, which you obtained working at sea, will be of no use on the shore. The peculiarity of the second sentence is that the clause can be extracted out of it without damaging its grammatical structure and even the sense of the predication, whereas in the first of them the clause cannot be done so - if we try to take it out, we shall ruin the sentence altogether. But for the one thing: the defining relative clause allows omission of its relative pronoun that (or which). The omission of definite article has nothing to do with the omission of that, no connection whatsoever. By the way, the the should be placed before skills.
Topic: Be especially
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 7:59:30 AM
Jigneshbharati wrote:
Never leave medications lying around and be especially careful whenmedications are mixed in food or liquid: other individuals could mistakethem for a snack and take the medication. This is a poisoning and is a veryserious issue.

Is "be" required because of "imperative " or "subjunctive"?

In the first sentence, the formal subject and a part of the predicate are omitted. In full, it reads: "You must not leave medications lying around, and you must be especially careful...". That's where that be came from.
Topic: Как будет КОТЕЛОК на профессиональном морском жаргоне
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 7:32:03 AM
Andrei Kuratov (Андрей Куратов) wrote:
Как, по-вашему, из уст русского ветерана, в прошлом - морского волка, прозвучала бы жалоба: "КОТЕЛОК у меня что-то ПЛОХО ВАРИТ в последнее время". В матерных вариантах парафраза особо не нуждаюсь, но готов рассмотреть их при условии, что они подчеркнут профессиональную принадлежность говорящего морскому делу. Предлагаю использовать звездочки в корнях матерных слов. Заранее благодарю за помощь.

Всем привет! Андрей. Морской, как Вы выразились, волк в первую очередь - русскоязычный (чуть не написал "русский") человек. В силу специфики работы, моряки как правило имеют образование не ниже (для рядового состава) среднеспециального. Большая же часть судоэкипажа - люди с высшим профильным. И заявленная Вами фраза скорее всего так и звучала бы, как Вы и выразили её. А мата было бы добавлено не более, чем сухопутным "русским". Если Вы имеете в виду некий особый "морской" язык, то, по большому счёту, такого нет. Говорю как не один год проработавший в море и профессионально занимающийся языкознанием. Есть родной для моряка (любого специалиста - летчика, шахтёра, токаря &c) язык - русский, японский, хинди, французский; для его специальности в родном языке отведена своя ниша, которая, в некоторой степени, конечно отделена от общего тела языка (на то она и ниша), но всё-таки неразрывно с ним связана. Обилие профессионализмов в речи таких людей на рабочем месте оправдано, но в быту судоводитель, к примеру, едва ли станет пользоваться мало кому понятными терминами и оборотами - в магазине, скажем. Ничего кроме улыбки или усмешки окружающих такое поведение не вызовет.
Topic: Punctuation
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 11:54:35 PM
FounDit wrote:
Koh Elaine wrote:
This is just one of many unfortunate high-profile Hollywood suicides in recent years. Bourdain’s death follows fashion designer Kate Spade, who hung herself in her New York apartment. Earlier this year, many known celebrities took their own lives. The number of high-profile deaths has risen greatly in recent years— with many attributed to suicide. Many stars have pointed out that celebrities are just people, and just like us, they can suffer from mental illness.

Regarding the bold part, can it be punctuated as follows? If not, what is the reason?

"celebrities are just people and, just like us, they can suffer from mental illness."


I really think your version is the more correct one.

Hi, Koh Elaine & FounDit
There's the third way to punctuate the sentence, but firstly, I would say that the original is quite rightly done, for there's the enumeration in it: "celebrities are just people, and (they are) just like us, they can suffer ...". As to the Koh Elaine's variant, it is quite correct, too, but it is more sensible and expressive, some important features which the original lacks. If it's taken out of some media, then it's clear: authors usually do not have enough time to re-read their writings (if they ever do so at all). This remodelled sentence, however, is not completed in commaing. Look now: you have made just like us the separated copula, the only definition for which is a parenthesis. This one shall always be separated from the rest of the containing sentence (commas, dashes, or whatever) and may be extracted out of the clause without damaging the sense and grammar of the predication. Let's do so: celebrities are just people and they can suffer from mental illness. Now we have a compound sentence consisting of two independent ones (within the domain they are called "clauses"). Those clauses are coordinated, they are coupled by the coordinating conjunction and, but the formal, visible (not audible) sign of such tie between them is comma. Let's put it in: celebrities are just people, and they can suffer from mental illness. The final step is to return the parenthesis to its position: celebrities are just people, and, just like us, they can suffer from mental illness. You see, now we have an extra comma before and ("extra" if compared to your variant). You've chosen the way better than the author of the original but for only one comma. Anyway, Kudos!
Topic: "If" or "whether"
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:44:07 AM
Hi, folks! Beg everybody's pardon, should have introduce my newbie's self first. Now, just to make the matter more distinct. "I want to know if the below is correct" means no more than it says, i.e., "I don't know" (the situation is clear). That same sentence containing whether implies what the initial variant doesn't - doubt, that is, "I know the below is correct, but I now doubt it". What I mean to say is that whether always reminds us that there is a suppressed alternative.
Topic: "If" or "whether"
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:06:26 AM
As to the common sense, we are at liberty to use both if and whether in any case where they are applicable but for the only difference in meaning: if suits every sentence with no restrictions, whereas whether is used when the speaker is not sure of the possible answer. Whether thus implies ambiguity. Compare: I'm not sure if she comes vs I'm not sure whether she comes. The second variant does not need to entail "...or not", which is quite clear from the whether itself. As to the first variant with the if, in some peculiar situation it may express "I know for sure that she won't come (and didn't mean to, at that)". The whether here is just impossible. Dixi.

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