mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: coldpearls1022
User Name: coldpearls1022
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Joined: Thursday, December 27, 2012
Last Visit: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:55:11 AM
Number of Posts: 155
[0.01% of all post / 0.05 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Women vs. the women
Posted: Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:38:34 PM
I think it would be acceptable per se, except in the expression "the young (and pretty) ones". The authors is speaking of all young and pretty ones, which requires the definite article.
Topic: "Black English"
Posted: Monday, November 3, 2014 11:32:57 PM
FounDit wrote:
No, I got it: there is no linguistic category called “Black English”.

For what it's worth: In S. Pinker, The Language Instinct, the vernacular in question is referred to as "Black American English" (BAE). The author compares it to Standard American English (SAE), points out the differences in grammar as well as BAE's intrinsic rationality (it follows rules just as complex as precise as SAE or any other language).
Topic: "Black English"
Posted: Saturday, November 1, 2014 12:59:41 PM
palapaguy wrote:
This is really all about personal preference and political correctness, not about English usage.

It's hard to find out what is the standard for political correctness, too. One might think using the expression "Black English" was actually precisely what a good Liberal would do, since it acknowledges the individuality of Black language and culture without measuring them against an external standard, which would lead one to declare that Blacks don't speak "properly" or the like. But now we are told this expression is actually offensive. It is hard to navigate this kinds of things Think
Topic: "Which" clause
Posted: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:51:41 PM
What I once learned (see what I did here?) is that "which" always follows the antecedent. When the relative clause precedes it, o the other hand, one uses (contrary to the general rule) "what". This is especially common in expressions such as "what is more":

"My father encouraged me to buy a new house and, what is more, gave me money for it."
Topic: "Which" clause
Posted: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:35:20 PM
Sorry, guys, but shouldn't it be "what" since the relative pronoun precedes the word it refers to?
Topic: Men will always be men
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:47:06 PM
Romany wrote:
ps - can't make up my mind whether your last remark deserves a smiley-face or a shame-on-you face!

Then please humor me and enlighten me, because I must be missing something...
Topic: Overjoyed to see/seeing
Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:03:04 AM
My gut prefers "to see". But I don't know the rationale for the choice between the gerund and the infinitive beyond the fact that some expressions govern the one, others the other, and quite a few govern both.
Topic: I promise I shall
Posted: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:13:55 PM
rogermue wrote:
Now, as to "shall (German soll-en), I think German sollen is a contraction of so + wollen.

I think sollen/shall originally means "to be obligated" and is related to "Schuld" (debt). This fits even better with the notion of someone else wanting me to do what I "shall" do. So in Saxon-Low German-Dutch futurity is regarded as an action that someone "owes" and is therefore bound to happen.

As far as I know, in the King James bible future tenses are always expressed by "shall". This probably means that every time the original Hebrew of Greek text has a verb in the future (and at least Greek possessed, unlike Germanic, a true future tense) the translators rendered it with "shall". I suspect that the problem of what the "correct future tense" in English is actually only came around in the contexts of translations. Otherwise, why would any speaker have wasted any though on that? There have always been plenty of ways to refer to a future event: something is "owed" or "supposed" to happen (shall), something someone intends to do (will), something that must happen (must, is bound to), something that is in preparation (going to) etc. Only when the German, Dutch or English translators faced the problem of how to render the Greek or Latin future tense they settled for "shall" as the form that seemed to them the most "neutral" and thus coming closest to the original.

My five cents...
Topic: I promise I shall
Posted: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:52:55 AM
I have just found out that there is entire Wikipedia page on this topic:
Topic: Would it be correct to use a verb after the word, "against"?
Posted: Sunday, August 10, 2014 2:07:11 AM
Seems legit to me, although the use of the word "to revolt" in a rater trivial matter seems somewhat over the top.