|
navi |
|
Advanced Member |
| None Specified |
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2014 |
|
Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:18:59 AM |
498
[0.05% of all post / 0.21 posts per day] |
|
|
Thank you all very much,
Audiendus wrote:I agree with Drag0nspeaker. I would just add that (2) and (3) (but not (1) or (4)) could be used to mean the guests as a mass. Then the emphasis would be on "guests", not "all". For example:
He couldn't stand all the guests. There were so many of them. He just wished his granddaughter's party would end so that the house would be quiet again.
Very interesting. My wife (who goes by the username Azz) came up with that possibility and started a thread about it.
We hadn't thought of 'all the noise' as a possibility. 'Noise' is a mass noun, but maybe the same structure would work with countable nouns if one uses the right tone of voice.
It is always exciting when we get differing viewpoints.
I try to use the clearest possible way to express an idea, but I love to explore the other ways. It is important to be able to pinpoint meanings when one is translating.
Gratefully and respectfully,
Navi
|
1) He didn't like all of the guests.
2) He didn't like all the guests.
3) He couldn't stand all the guests.
4) He couldn't stand all of the guests.
Could these sentences ever be used instead of:
1a) He didn't like any of the guests.
2a) He didn't like any of the guests.
3a) He couldn't stand any of the guests.
4a) He couldn't stand any of the guests.
respectively?
I think that could only happen in informal spoken English with a particular emphasis.
Generally, the meaning would be 'some but not all'.
Gratefully,
Navi
|
1) I was the man whom they asked what his name was.
2) I was the man whose name they asked.
3) I was the man whom they asked for his name.
Which could be used if they asked my name of me?
I think all of them could be used in that case. All seem ambiguous.
In '1' and '3' they might have asked for another person's name and in '2' they might have asked someone else.
Is that correct?
Gratefully,
Navi
|
1) I didn't stand in front of the window, which was what I was supposed to do.
2) I wasn't standing in front of the window, which was what I was supposed to do.
3) I wasn't standing in front of the window, which was what I was expected to do.
Was I supposed to/expected to stand in front of the window or not stand in front of the window?
Gratefully,
Navi
|
Are these sentences correct:
1) That movie was not interesting and boring.
2) This book is not a little disturbing and extremely pretentious.
3) This book is not a little disturbing and pretentious.
In '3' does 'not a little' modify 'pretentious'?
Would a comma before 'and' change things?
4) This book is not a little disturbing, and pretentious.
5) This book is not a little disturbing and also pretentious.
Gratefully,
Navi
|
a. This box is heavier than I can lift.
b. He is stronger than I can beat.
c. He is better than I can compete against.
d. This task is harder than Tim can carry out.
Which of the above sentences are grammatically correct?
The first one sounds fine to me, but all the others sound strange!
Many thanks
|
Thank you both very much,
I understand that it could be a sensitive subject and I try to be careful although I might be prone to the occasional gaffe, like most people I assume.
This was a question about grammar, and I was really thinking about the social aspects of it because I am not talking about real people.
Respectfully,
Navi
|
1) Last night I met an ex-husband of Jane's.
Does that necessarily imply that I think that Jane has more than one ex-husband?
Let's say that I don't know how many ex-husbands Jane has (maybe one, maybe more), could I use that sentence?
Could I use it if I knew for a fact that Jane had only one ex-husband?
Gratefully,
Navi
|
1) It happened too long ago for me to remember.
2) It happened so long ago that I don't remember.
3) It happened longer ago than I remember.
What is the meaning of the sentences?
I see two possibilities:
a) I don't remember how long ago it happened.
or:
b) I don't remember the event itself because it happened so long ago.
Gratefully,
Navi
|
|