mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: Pandion haliaetus
User Name: Pandion haliaetus
Forum Rank: Newbie
Gender: Male
Joined: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Last Visit: Monday, September 13, 2021 12:15:47 AM
Number of Posts: 21
[0.00% of all post / 0.02 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Suggestions for a film studio's name
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:58:43 AM
Hi, Parpar 1836,

I would suggest, and, as you may see it from my nom de guerre, I have reasons to do so, to examine the following path of choosing the right term - try the bird's name in Latin.

A latin name (there are many of them for different species) for all cardinal-birds which suits your demands most is Richmondena cardinalis. Suppose, for the sake of brevity, you take the first word of it: being a part of the universal scientific classification, it, if taken as a logo, will hardly arouse any claims. Richmondena contains the 'i'-letter, the idea of it is as closely connected with your logo as nothing else is, and it simply sounds good (Richmondena Studio).
A red bird can be confused with an oriole, and if it is not the Redbird (which, as you've said, can't be registered), then Richmondena comes in to substitute it with relevancy, I think.
In fact, Richmondena cardinalis is another bird (blue grosbeak) of the same family as the northern cardinal, the name given after
the renowned American ornithologist Charles Wallace Richmond.
Topic: each eat one
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2018 2:06:05 AM
robjen wrote:
I have made up a sentence below.

(ex) We will buy oranges and each eat or eats two.

I am not sure whether verb form is correct: eat or eats. My friends and I think "eats" because of "each".

Please help us. Thanks a lot.

Hi, robjen,

Something prompts me that, in full, the sentence should stand as: We will buy oranges and will eat each two, will buy and (will) eat being its whole verbal predicate; so the question of 'eat or eats' falls off by itself.

What concerns each, there's a point of view stating that 'when each is appended in apposition to a plural subject, it should stand after the verb, or auxuliary, which should be plural' (another objection to eats).

Thus, if we means two eaters, there will be four oranges eaten, and so on.
Otherwise, it can be re-written as, We will buy oranges, and each of us will eat two.
Topic: My friends have took
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2018 7:17:08 AM
Well, if I may put forward a slice of some curious sibilant phonetics, there's just a couple of lines to be quoted (A 16-year-old Eva attached to her Mother at the doctor's):

"'I mean take all her clothes off her chest. Otherwise I shall not be able to make a diagnosis, we won't be able to start treatment, Eva will get worse, and you won't get any sleep.'

Eva said nothing as her mother peeled away several layers of cardigans, blouses, and vests. At last her chest was exposed. I laid my stethoscope over the heart, winked at her pleasantly, and said with a smile, 'Big breaths.'

A look of interest at last illuminated the child's face. She glanced at me and grinned. 'Yeth,' she said proudly, 'and I'm only thixteen.'"
(Richard Gordon, Doctor at Large, 1961).
Topic: not highly qualified
Posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 4:46:41 AM
thar wrote:
Not highly-qualified = poorly-qualified.

But that doesn't mean what you think.
It means they were not qualified for that work.

It does not describe their educational level.

A man with an MBA is not highly qualified to dig ditches!

You need to be more specific in what aspect you are describing.

At that, for the reasons like these, there's an apt navy term: a non-qual (-ified).
Topic: The tyre air pressure is low.
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:49:49 PM
bihunsedap wrote:
I went to fuel station and pumped my car tyres.

"What are you doing." my son asked.
"I'm pumping up tyres. The tyre pressure is low."

The tyre air pressure is low.
The tyre pressure is low.

Which one is correct?

Hi, bihunsedap,

Until you haven't changed the substance with which to inflate the tyres of your car to some other than the compressed air, the second sentence sounds quite comprehensible. And my reciprocal question is why not writing it the tyre-air pressure? Hyphened, I mean; or is there no much difference: tyre air pressure : tyre-air pressure : tyre air-pressure? Despite some nuances, all they three explain in general one and the same thing to everyone unless one is sufferring from grammatical pedantry. Am I right or wrong? (Also see the thar's explanation of the topic "a little-known fact" here, on the Forum).
Topic: comma after "which"
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:00:55 AM
Aha! Much thanks for clarification, DragOnspeaker.
Topic: comma after "which"
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 7:20:16 AM
Koh Elaine wrote:

Four wills were let behind by Mr Sia when he died on March 24, 2016. Mr Yong claimed he was the rightful executor of the second will that was done in 2012, in which he is the major beneficiary.

1. Shouldn't there be a comma after 'will'?
2. Shouldn't 'that' be replaced by 'which?


Hi, Koh Elaine,

1.) Since this is the defining relative clause (otherwise called the attributive restrictive relative clause), nothing is allowed to sever the antecedent the second will from its clause that was done in 2012, which is essential to and inseparable from its antecedent.

2.) I didn't quite understand your second question. Why (and what for) should it (the relative pronoun that) be replaced? It's right at its place, I think. What concerns the next clause beginning with in which, to my opinion, it is the same as the one before: the defining clause. The choice of which is stipulated by the peculiarity of that, which has no possessive case, and can't take a preposition before it: we can try saying "the second will that he is the major beneficiary in", but it sounds ugly, if not to mention impossible.
Hence it follows that in the sentence there are two attributive restrictive clauses both belonging to the same antecedent the second will - a kind of enumeration, if I may say so. That's why they must be separated from each other, but no any other commaing is necessary. However, I'd say it this way: the second will of which he is the major beneficiary.
Topic: Game name
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:11:39 AM
Joe Kim wrote:
There is a game where you remove your hand from other's hand. (If there is a correct name, I don't need to know)

What would be the correct name for the game?
1. Let's play remove the hand.
2. Let's play remove your hand
3. Let's play hand remove
4. Let's play the remove the hand
5. Let's play the hand remove
6. Let's play the remove the hand game.
7. Let's play the hand remove game.

Regardless of its real name:

1.) Let's play "Remove your hand".

2.) Let's play the Remove your hand game.

3.) Let's play the game "Remove your hand".

4.) Let's play the game called Remove your hand.

However, any other suggestions/corrections are wanted, for for its my personal point of view.
Topic: Feel burning
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 11:57:47 PM
Joe Kim wrote:
Do you feel burning in your eyes?

Does this make sense to you in anyways?
(just this sentence alone)

Hi, Joe Kim,

Of course, it does. That's what one feels after looking at the welding in process without a dimming-glass shield or something of this kind. Anything that irritates the eyes makes them figuratively burn.
Topic: From (the) inside
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:40:20 PM
Joe Kim wrote:
1. Can't open the car from the inside.
2. Can't open from inside.

Is #2 correct? From the inside or from inside, which is correct?

Hi, Joe Kim,
The first sentence is undoubtedly correct with the inside being the noun, the name for the inner space of the car where you are locked. The diffence may, to some extent, be exemplified with a couple of arificial, purposely fabricated instances:
1.) I got inside the car searching for the lost keys (preposition);
2.) And I'm now locked inside (adverb);
3.) The point is that I cannot open the car from the inside (noun).