mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: antonio hernandez aguillares
User Name: antonio hernandez aguillares
Forum Rank: Newbie
Gender: Male
Joined: Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Last Visit: Sunday, September 26, 2021 3:19:08 PM
Number of Posts: 4
[0.00% of all post / 0.00 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Should as request
Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:05:44 PM
Hello community, I 'should' like to ask if "should" is still used as request, nevertheless, without connoting an old-fashioned word. Because I found that on Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries show that it's only formal but not old-fashioned; however, my teacher said to me it's old-fashioned and not used anymore. Can anyone help me?

-should modal verb (WOULD)

UK formal
used instead of "would" when the subject is "I" or "we":
I should like a cup of tea before I go to bed.
I shouldn't expect you to pay, of course.- Source:

​-(British English, formal) used with I and we in polite requests
I should like to call my lawyer.
We should be grateful for your help.- Source:
Topic: A sense of the verb "to partake"
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2021 2:47:30 PM
thar wrote:

It usually means to eat or drink something.
Either you take the food, or you are given the food. Then you eat it.

Thank you a lot, now I've comprehended why there was the verb 'to be' there.
Topic: A sense of the verb "to partake"
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2021 2:41:11 PM
tautophile wrote:
Your second paragraph is difficult to understand. I think you are trying to say "I can understand clearly the first part, i.e., that 'partake' means 'to take a part or portion'. According to the definition above [i.e., the one you quote from], the second part should be the same as the first one, I mean: 'to take given part or portion' should in some sense be the same 'to be given part or portion'; nevertheless, I can't get the second."

Yes, sorry. I omitted some punctuation; however, I thought that one can substitute 'clearly' for 'clear', inasmuch as according to this source:, number '1' in the adverb section, it says "1. Distinctly; clearly".

And in the part where you change 'must' for 'should', the thing that I wanted to express was 'to indicate a logical probability' with that word (must).

tautophile wrote:

if it were the same, there would be no need for that second part.

In this part I don't completely agree with you, it's often to use second parts when you wish to clarify concepts, since not always the conjuction 'or' is used to indicate alternatives, but synonymous or equivalent expressions.

Anyway, thanks for your comment, I really appreciate it.
Topic: A sense of the verb "to partake"
Posted: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:20:32 PM
Sense of the verb "to partake"

Hi, this is one of the meanings:
"To take or be given part or portion."

I can understand clear the first part "to take given part or portion", according to the definition above the second part must be the same as the first one, I mean: "to take given part or portion" = "to be given part or portion", nevertheless, I can't get the second.

Why have they got the same meaning? Could you tell me?