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

Profile: Romany
User Name: Romany
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Joined: Sunday, June 14, 2009
Last Visit: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:48:35 AM
Number of Posts: 15,659
[1.64% of all post / 4.17 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Is the sentence correct?
Posted: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:43:16 AM

Agree with Thar; but I think I would tend to say "I'm doing some private tutoring to augment my...."
Topic: Uses of comma
Posted: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:39:24 AM

There are three parts to the sentence:

1. 'It' (being unable to make a sentence) doesn't just apply to KS1 pupils. (It doesn't seem to be a KS1 phenomenon,)
2. 'It' also applies to KS2 pupils.(I have witnessed it in KS2,)
3. 'It' applies to Y3 students which is what led me to ask questions.(talking to frustrated teachers in Y3 led me to ask the following question on Twitter and Facebook.)

Just as commas seperate items on a list, they seperate the different sections of a sentence.
Topic: She hired a private investigator to follow her husband.
Posted: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:23:12 AM

Because, as Thar says, "in order to" refers to 'her', you end up with a sentence which tells us the 'she' hired a PI so that (in order to) 'she', herself, could follow her husband.

This is a possible scenario: it is possible that she wanted the PI to follow her husband to assess his movements so that she herself could then follow her spouse (perhaps with a gun?!) .

But, in the light of the original sentence, this is not what is meant.
Topic: tend
Posted: Sunday, September 22, 2019 1:50:39 PM

Atatirk - perhaps this is another of those unsuspected BE/AE differences but - there are two different and seperate meanings of the verb "tend": one takes the preposition 'to' the other doesn't.

"Tend" meaning one leans towards a certain way of thinking/action etc. always takes the preposition "to". e.g. I..tend to think; tend to do; tend to like; tend to prefer....etc.

The other 'tend' means to minister TO someone and does not take 'to'. e.g. the nurse was tending her patients; the Charity worker was tending the homeless, his mother tended his wounds when he got home...etc. does not take 'to' because it is implicit to the word: 'minister TO' someone.
Topic: Callinated?
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2019 4:42:24 PM

If you do come across the definitive explanation please get back to us. Dying to know.
Topic: Explanation of text
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2019 4:37:00 PM

Koh, It seems, once again, politics has been brought into the Grammar Section. I do apologise: I hadn't dreamt FD was going come in muttering about hate, and insults etc.

So I went looking to find what on earth had set both he and Wilmar off and finally found it: President Obama had also commented upon "American Exceptionalism".

The subject however has been debated since the 1690s - it was given as the reason for America to dominate all other countries of the world through religion. It was talked about in the 19thC - and many people DID agree with it then. And since the 1970s different aspects of it - and its effects - are talked about in Undergraduate pubs and government circles in more modern times.

It's part of Trump's belief: so his supporters endorse it too. FD & Wilma support Trump so that's how things got all shouty and insulty. It's a huge subject which anyone who's interested in can look up all over the internet. I didn't think it was worth going into detail about, so I made the factual statement:

"there's (sic) many Americans who believe that they are "exceptional" i.e. better than citizens from other countries. "
This is undeniably true. There are.

I also know that it's undeniably true there are people who think the English, and French and Chinese and Indonesians etc. etc. are superior to other people. It's not a purely American thing. (Although there's no other developed country where sections of the population thinks they were specifically sent by their god to lead all the countries of the world and get rid of others' beliefs).

"American exceptionalism" is a phrase that has been used in many instances..." a matter of easily checked fact: it's been used in politics, military aggression, the economy,etc.[/u]

" and, naturally, people from other countries don't agree." A very obvious fact.Just ask your mum or dad.Whistle

So, to reiterate: There's (sic) many Americans who believe that they are "exceptional" i.e. better than citizens from other countries"

Having answered your last question I'm not going to stick around to get slagged off any more! It's all you need to know in the context of your query. If you want to know any more you can look it up. If FD wants to keep on about it he can do so in the Politics thread.

'Night all.

Topic: Is this tense combination possible?
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2019 6:03:19 AM
There are circumstances in which this combination works.

e.g. Your co-worker has had a meeting with the boss. While they were talking someone went in to take them coffee and overheard what they were saying.They came out and told you about it. When your co-worker had finished the meeting they said to you: "I've just seen the boss. You'll never guess what she wanted!!" THEN you could say "I've heard what you were talking about. She's crazy if she thinks we'll agree!"
Topic: Explanation of text
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2019 5:56:21 AM

Koh -
there's many Americans who believe that they are "exceptional" i.e. better than citizens from other countries. "American exceptionalism" is a phrase that has been used in many instances and, naturally, people from other countries don't agree.

Most people keep their thoughts to themselves when they hear this phrase (apart from comedians). But obviously the person who wrote the above lets it really upset them. The person who wrote this is obviously a very nasty person. They are saying that the only thing "exceptional" about America is that 3 tall sky-scrapers all fell to the ground in a single day.

The fact that this was a major tragedy, that thousands of lives were lost, that innocent people were killed, that people are still suffering...means that no sane person would even THINK of such a statement, let alone write it somewhere so that others could see it.

There are people who are nasty and evil in the world and we all know it. But we don't usually pay them any attention. I think that's why Sarries finds this a distatesful subject to explain: this is just another crazy person and paying any attention to them is distastful. Sarries probably doesn't care how crazy the person is: he feels that their words are so horrific he doesn't want to examine them.

They certainly do leave a bad taste in the mouth.
Topic: Sweeper
Posted: Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:22:41 PM

Although local Councils may dream up ridiculous titles like that, in the 6 years I've been here I've never heard anyone - whether they work in that field or not - refer to street sweepers or the "rubbish man/men" as anything other since I arrived.

Actually - the only time I ever hear people use 'sanitation engineer' and its ilk, is when they are loudly inisting that's what we are "supposed" to say, and that we are no longer "allowed" to use any other term, and that it's political correctness gone mad!
Topic: but I don’t think I’d be much good at it
Posted: Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:10:46 PM

This is one of those "usage" matters:-

as FD says; "I think I would not be good at it" doesn't change the meaning from "I don't think I'd be much good at it."

However, because we now put the negative first in sentences like this, it doesn't occur to a native/fluent English speaker to disrupt the pattern...

'I won't go...'
'I can't come...'
'I'm not allowed to...'
"I DON'T think..."

Such sentences as "I think I wouldn't..." confuse us because the pattern is inverted. (IRL -Politicians,newscasters and members of the public at the moment are STILL bickering about a public figure who inverted a sentence earlier this year!!)

In Old and Middle English the negative used to go after the verb as in "I weep not" "I dance not" but we started changing that system more than 600 years ago, and completed the process only in the 20thC!

So yes, one can do it. But no, it's not a good template to follow.

In BE the foci in the two sentences doesn't change as it seems it does in AE.

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