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

Profile: Drag0nspeaker
User Name: Drag0nspeaker
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Male
Joined: Monday, September 12, 2011
Last Visit: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:01:27 AM
Number of Posts: 33,422
[3.44% of all post / 10.94 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:38:02 PM
Hope123 wrote:
If you’re sitting in public and a stranger takes the seat next to you, just stare straight ahead and say “Did you bring the money?”

Applause Applause Applause

Topic: Our Extremely Royall Highnesses - Official Statement,
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:01:14 PM
Who knows - I think it's mostly just in the nature of the press, most of them anyway.
What sells papers is a mix of conflict, blood, death, war, celebrity, alarm, confict, fear and conflict. This whole campaign CREATED its own conflict by reporting on non-existent conflict, alarm and fear.

However this investigator (below) has spotted another motive - he's Alan Rusbridger, principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University - and is also Chairman of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

"To understand the “real” story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it helps to think in three dimensions. On one level, we have a story about a couple who, for perfectly understandable reasons, want a different kind of life: a new start, a fresh role, less scrutiny, more peace of mind. All eminently reasonable and not very remarkable.

But there is, of course, the second level: they’re inescapably royal. This is hardly the abdication: the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering. But, whether you are a pope or a prince, there are undoubtedly complications in trying to assert a private identity that is decoupled from your apparent destiny or birthright.

The third level is the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple is filtered through journalists. It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources. So, in order to believe what we’re being told, we have to take it on trust that there are currently legions of “aides”, “palace insiders”, “friends” and “senior courtiers” constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know.

But trust in this third dimension is further compromised by the fact that none of the major players filtering this story for our consumption is exactly a disinterested bystander. All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared.

For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).

The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn.

Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror.

To understand why this is, to put it mildly, a bombshell, you would have needed to be following the patient work of Mr Justice Mann (and before him, Mr Justice Vos) in the anonymous Rolls Building, home to the chancery court, just off London’s Strand.

Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch’s son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun’s official position is to “not admit” any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested.

Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims in front of Mann. Morgan may be entirely innocent, but if you spend your time pouring venom over a claimant in a case that might touch on your own conduct, you’d think there was at least an interest to declare – every single time you do it.

And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. The Mail on Sunday claims “huge and legitimate public interest” in publishing extracts from a private letter from Meghan to her father. We shall see, but meanwhile there’s no harm in portraying her as a ruthless hypocrite and gold-digger. If Morgan’s on hand with the vitriol, everyone’s happy.

So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story – not all of it untrue – and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly.

The metrics are irresistible: this couple sell newspapers and attract eyeballs by the billion. There is little hope that editors are going to dial down their coverage. But there is kindness; and there is fairness; and there is honesty. A little bit of each of those would help the rest of us understand better and trust more."
Topic: Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:44:33 PM
This is just semantics - but it IS an important point which Y111 made. It's the word itself.

If you heard of an elitist movement, would you automatically feel it was based on equal rights for all, including the elite? Or does it sound like the elite are treated favourably?

If you heard that someone had started a masculist movement, would you consider automatically that it was intended to treat women equally? Or that the masculine should be favoured?

THAT is the impression the WORD "Feminist" creates - just by the way the English language works.
I KNOW that the definition is not meant to mean the feminine should be favoured - but that's what the word sounds like.

It's a bad choice of word from a century ago. The word DOES work against women.
"Egalitarianism" would have been a better choice, but it's a bit late now.
Topic: Do you agree with these two guidelines?
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:25:53 PM
Hi again - somehow I 'lost the thread'.

I've never heard of "stances" either - but I can see how they came to invent that term.

I think it is because we are not talking about two tenses, but with two forms of the same tense. Don't you think so?

This is something almost everyone (including many grammars and my teachers at school) are a bit unclear about.

REALLY "tense" refers to when it occurs (past, present or future - or even timeless).
Perfectiveness is an aspect of any of these tenses.
Progressiveness is another aspect of these three tenses.

aspect - n
9. (Grammar) grammar a category of verbs or verbal inflections that expresses such features as the continuity, repetition, or completedness of the action described.

Collins English Dictionary

To me, where either could be used, the difference is really in the word "continuous".

continual - intermittent; often repeated: continual chiming of a clock
Not to be confused with:
continuous – uninterrupted in time: continuous ticking of a clock.

Abused, Confused, & Misused Words

"I've eaten eggs for years" and "I've eaten eggs since I was two years old" are obviously continual (not continuous) actions of eating eggs.

"I've been eating for the last half hour" or "I've been eating since twelve" are pretty much continuous actions - eating one meal.
Topic: restrictive relative clause
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 6:50:16 PM
The factor which determines the use of the article isn't really the punctuation or the form of the sentence, it's whether the sentence (and possibly the sentence before this one) specify WHICH particular apples. A restrictive clause naturally specifies (restricts) so would usually have "the".

Sentence 1 specifies "the apples sold in this town".
Sentence 2 talks about apples in general - Apples are expensive (and some shops in this town sell apples).

Both sentences are constructed correctly.

The rules for "that" and "which" vary from style-guide to style-guide. However, they ALL agree on the commas.

The one I grew up with did not allow "that" to be used at all as a relative pronoun - so your sentences would be:
3 The apples which some shops sell in this town are expensive. (restrictive relative clause)
2 Apples, which some shops sell in this town, are expensive. (non-restrictive relative clause)

The one which most people in the USA seem to learn at school is that "that" is always used in restrictive clauses, and "which" in non-restrictive clauses.
1 The apples that some shops sell in this town are expensive. (restrictive relative clause)
2 Apples, which some shops sell in this town, are expensive. (non-restrictive relative clause)

The onlt thing they all agree on is "That" is never used in a non-restrictive clause - so your sentence number 4 is wrong.
Topic: Are there any grammatical errors in the first sentence ?
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 6:31:18 PM
I agree.
Just looking at the first sentence for now - the existing commas make it look like a list.

"We set out own agenda, free from:
1. commercial bias,
2. undue influence from billionaire owners,
3. millionaire politicians
4. or shareholders

I also think you have a typing error. My version uses your own words, but changes the punctuation mainly.

"We set our t own agenda, free from commercial bias and free from undue influence from billionaire owners, millionaire politicians or shareholders.

As to the rest of the paragraph:
Another typo - the three "If"s.
Otherwise the second sentence is good. (Personally, I would add an "and" in the parenthetic statement - ". . ., and who likes it, . . .", but it's not vital.)

The third sentence is not quite there. The two initial phrases are of very different types which don't work together (the first is a prepositional phrase and the second looks like a gerund phrase. It looks like the preposition is "shared by the two phrases". If I were to "expand them" you will probably see what I mean:
For - as little as USD1 a month or
for - subscribing to us,
you can support our work

This doesn't make sense, really, but is easily changed in either of two ways. You can make them both participle phrases, or both prepositional phrases.
By paying as little as a dollar a month, or by subscribing to us, you can . . .
For as little as a dollar a month or your subscription, you can . . .

"USD1" doesn't mean anything to me - and obviously tautophile had difficulty with it, too.

The fourth sentence looks great to me.
Topic: event
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:55:34 PM
Romany wrote:
Woops! Typo!

Thanks for picking up on that Tautophile - it might have confused those who read it considerably!

WOW! That recently?
Topic: immediate past
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:53:15 PM
"Talk", "say", "speak" are odd verbs in that they seem to mean more or less the same, but they're used differently. You can't ask "What have you been talking?" but you could ask "What have you been saying?" or "What have you been talking about?"

Anyway - your question:

What have you been talking about? As a perfect aspect, it relates to a time period from some point in the past to the present (to make it a specified point, you have to add "since____"). So it relates to any instances of speaking in that whole period.
What have you been talking about since your last lecture here?


What were you talking about? relates to one incident in the past which has a relatively short duration.
What were you talking about in your last lecture here? or What did you talk about in your last lecture here?


Concerning d & h - they ask the right thing, they are grammatically OK and don't sound awkward (once you move the "just") it's a matter of manners, not language - so it's English grammar in that grammar is a study of how words and sentences are used - and questions like this are not USED. Well, as Romany says, a parent or teacher may feel they have the right to question what a child has been doing - but not a work colleague. It seems it's the same in the USA, as Wilmar also says you'd sound like you were confronting someone who was up to no good (doing something wrong).

The normal answer to any of your eight questions would probably be "Mind your own business!" or something even more angry.
Topic: event
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:19:29 PM
However, I can't think how a verb can be an event - unless whoever wrote it thinks that a vebal noun (like "a wedding", "a christening", "a baptism", "a beating" or "a crash") is a verb.

In my view, they are nouns which were formed from verbs; they are not verbs themselves.

An event is something which happens.

event noun
1. something that happens; an incident or occurrence.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
Topic: -pur (Indian root)
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:06:40 PM
srirr wrote:
'garh' is related to castles or forts. Unlike pur/pura/puram or bad, garh is also used as a standalone term. A fort of a king can be called as his garh. It is also used to refer to den of goons or rebels. A smaller such colony is called garhi.

garth n
1. (Architecture) a courtyard surrounded by a cloister
[C14: from Old Norse garthr; related to Old English geard yard]

This was (usually) the form of a castle and early settlements - a yard surrounded by a wall.

The word still exists in northern dialects.
This early meadiaeval settlement is in northern Yorkshire.