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

Profile: Drag0nspeaker
About
User Name: Drag0nspeaker
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: Security Guard
Interests: Life, languages, Scientology
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 12, 2011
Last Visit: Monday, January 21, 2019 8:38:27 PM
Number of Posts: 31,029
[3.38% of all post / 11.53 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: That can... vs which can get...
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 8:06:39 PM
RuthP wrote:
No, you cannot change "that" into "which", though many native speakers might well do so. The quotes are what is getting one closer to one's goals, so they are necessary to the sentence. Phrases necessary to the sentence are "that". "Which" should be used when the information is extra information, the kind of phrase one surrounds with commas.

That is the advice given by the APA in its style-guide, but is not a rule for the English Language.
American Heritage Dictionary wrote:
But this use of 'which' with restrictive clauses is very common, even in edited prose.
Moreover, in some situations 'which' is preferable to 'that'.
'Which' can be especially useful where two or more relative clauses are joined by 'and' or 'or': It is a philosophy in which ordinary people may find solace and which many have found reason to praise.
'Which' may also be preferable when introducing a restrictive clause modifying a preceding phrase that contains 'that': We want to assign only that material which will be most helpful.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:
In British English, restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by 'that' or 'which' when they are referring to things rather than people:

The coat that/which Dan had on yesterday was new.

In this sentence, the writer is identifying the coat by saying it’s the one Dan was wearing yesterday, as opposed to any other coats he might own.

Non-restrictive relative clauses must always be introduced by 'which' and never by 'that':

The coat, which Dan had on yesterday, was made of pure alpaca and cost a bomb.

The difference (in writing) between a restrictive clause and a non-restrictive clause is that non-restrictive clauses MUST separated out by commas.
In speech, this is shown by pauses and tone of voice.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: as we speak/as you go along/as I say it
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 7:51:38 PM
I suppose it is, really. They say the same thing about the video.

"In that video, he changes his facial expression while (he says/is saying)..." is a fact - always.
I watched the video last week and he changed his expression while he said those words.
Also, I watched the video yesterday and he changed his expression while he said those words.
Also, when I watch that video tomorrow, he will change his expression while he is saying those words.
It's basically timeless - the main clause (he changes his expression) is in the "simple present tense" which is used for 'always true' facts.
The sun rises in the east. Water freezes at zero at normal pressure.

The only difference between the two is the speaker's view of the time taken to say ". . .".

"While he says" treats the time he said ". . ." as a single incident - what happens at that point in time.
"While he is saying" treats the time he is saying ". . ." as a period - what is happening during that period in time.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Are both questions natural and equally correct?
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 7:17:26 PM
Both questions are natural and correct - however the first one is not so likely to be asked.

a) What did Peter feel like? - this means "What thing feels the same as Peter, when you touch it?" or "What did Peter want to do?"

What did Peter feel like?
He felt like a warm piece of meat.
He felt like eating an ice cream.

b) How did he feel?
He felt like a teenager going out on a first date.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: As bad as
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2019 7:08:43 PM
Atatürk wrote:
More common is to say speak "in" a language.

I'm afraid not.
Like Romany, most people say "speak German", not "speak in German".

I can't (from this computer) upload an image, but here's the link to the graphs for the last 200 years or so.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Will
Posted: Saturday, January 19, 2019 2:05:52 PM
Yes - I think "I wonder what we'll be doing in two years time".

The other seem more likely to me as a comparison - In the last two years, we've made £50,000 for 'Save the Children'. I wonder what we'll have done in two years' time.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: How to stay hydrated in summer?
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2019 7:20:38 PM
It hasn't rained in - DAYs!

Welcome to the forum MichelleAna!

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Is Jesus really exist in history?
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2019 7:17:48 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
I'm curious what difference it makes whether there was a man named Jesus referred to in the Bible who actually existed?

'Satiable curtiosity!



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Apostrophe
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:55:45 PM
Quote:
Per APA Style, the answer is that the possessive of a singular name is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, even when the name ends in "s".
APA Style Blog

Quote:
This rule applies in most cases even with a name ending in s:

Thomas's job
the bus's arrival
James's fiancée
Steve Davis's victory
University of Sussex
Quote:

Personal names that end in –s


With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.


Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:
St Thomas’ Hospital

If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.

With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:
The court dismissed Bridges' appeal.
Oxford Dictionary

James's hat.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Will
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:41:05 PM
No - thought it may sound like it should mean that.

"In two years' time" means at a point, at 11:40pm, on the 18th of January 2021.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: Will
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:38:45 PM
They are both correct sentences, but give opposite sequences:

I will have joined the family company by the time I get my degree.
1. now
2. join the company
3. get the degree.

I will be joining the family company when I've got my degree.
1. now
2. get the degree
3. join the company (this could be immediately after (2), but not necessarily)


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!

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