mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: Major Tom
About
User Name: Major Tom
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Statistics
Joined: Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Last Visit: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:59:16 AM
Number of Posts: 174
[0.02% of all post / 0.07 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: pickle-plated
Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:54:18 AM
I also think that 'pickle-plated' should be 'nickel-plated' and it is used as a qualifier for the preceding 'cheap'.

For me this has more to do with the perceived value of nickel.
Something can be 'gold-plated' or 'silver-plated' and thus expensive, but this is only 'nickel-plated' or a very cheap knock off.
Topic: Anyone can help finding a correct adjective for this behavior? (vocabulary)
Posted: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 12:56:33 PM
The guy's a hog.
He's hogging the stuff.
Topic: Is "mic" a word?
Posted: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:28:18 AM
What about 'inventory' ('ɪnvəntərɪ; -trɪ) or ('ɪn vənˌtɔr i, -ˌtoʊr i)?

I often hear : '(ɪn'vɛnt ərɪ)!
Sick






Topic: Grammatical structures used in transformations
Posted: Sunday, August 3, 2014 4:23:41 PM
Quote:
16. Ian is sure he was right to turn down the job.
regrets
Ian regrets turning down the job.

This should be : "Ian has no regrets turning down the job."

Quote:
18. Not many people went to the last match of the season.
turnout
The last match of the season attracted a low turnout.

A turnout is a certain amount of people that has shown up.
I don't think it works in combination with attract.
'It attracted a large/small crowd' or 'It had a low turnout'.

Edit : Checked this one and I stand corrected.
TFD uses attracted with turnout in it's explanation.

Brick wall
Topic: Who is ......, Jim or Joe?
Posted: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:42:23 PM
I've never understood why you cannot have a superlative of two.
For me it is counter-intuitive.

It seems that the use of the comparative for two isn't so strict as one might think.
In actual usage the superlative is often used even if the rule says otherwise.

Below you can find an extract from another site that discusses just that.

Topics like this one is sometimes discussed in usage dictionaries, such as The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. In my copy of MWCDEU, there is the entry "superlative of two", pages 716-7. Here are some excerpts from it:

superlative of two

The notion, so beloved of modern commentators, that the superlative degree should not be used of only two seems to have had its origin in the 18th century. Joseph Priestley was one of the earliest to express it (Leonard 1929 cites a 1769 edition), but he only gave one example of the superlative of two and concluded, "This is a very pardonable oversight." Campbell 1776 was the next to take it up. He did so speculatively, allowing both "the weaker of the two" and "the weakest of the two," but preferring the comparative to the superlative on "the most general principles of analogy," which principles he did not explain. Lindley Murray 1795 took his discussion of the superlative straight from Campbell, but in later editions he eliminated any element of doubt. "The weaker of the two" became "the regular mode of expression, because there are only two things compared." Campbell's speculation had become a rule.

. . .

Two things should be noted about the rule. First, as Lamberts 1972 points out, it makes no difference from the standpoint of communication whether you use the comparative or the superlative of two. The rule serves no useful purpose at all. It is therefore a perfect shibboleth, serving no practical function except to separate those who observe the rule from those who do not.

The second thing is that the rule has never reflected actual usage. From the examples collected by Otto Jespersen and other historical investigators, it is plain that many of our best writers have used either the comparative or superlative of two, as suited their fancy at the time. Among the writers who found the superlative appropriate for two are Shakespeare, Milton, Defoe, Addison, Goldsmith, Dr. Johnson, Chesterfield, Austen, Byron, Scott, Irving, Hawthorne, Thackeray, Disraeli, Ruskin, Emerson, Stevenson, Thoreau, and James Russell Lowell. There is clearly a strong literary tradition for the practice. Here are some examples from our collection: . . .

We cannot agree as to which is the eldest of the two Miss Plumbtrees -- Jane Austen, letter, 31 May 1811

dinghy, dingey. The first is best -- Fowler 1926

Crane wrote two fine stories, The Open Boat and The Blue Hotel. The last one is the best -- Ernest Hemingway, Green Hills of Africa, 1935

. . . It seems clear from our experience in gathering examples of the superlative of two for this book that they are plentiful and can be readily found by anyone who is interested enough to look for them.

We conclude that the superlative of two is alive and well in current English. The rule requiring the comparative has a dubious basis in theory and no basis in practice, and it serves no useful communicative purpose. Because it does have a fair number of devoted adherents, however, you may well want to follow it in your most dignified or elevated writing. . . .


So if it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.Dancing
Topic: He is able to communicate in English both in written and oral form.
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:35:14 AM
I'm with tunaafi, moniquester and Romany.

I'll use the example given by Covenant to explain.
He saw both the red bird and the blue bird => Although they are both birds, there is only one single red bird and a single blue bird (= just the two birds).
He saw both the red and the blue birds. => There are more than one blue and red birds (= more than two birds).

Speaking and writing are both forms of English but speaking and writing are each considered to be a single form.

That's why I would use 'in both written and oral form'.




Topic: mouth comforting/ nothing of substance / correct
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:15:21 PM
Nima,

If someone says he/she doesn't understand your question, why do you persist in repeating that identical question, again and again.

What you ask doesn't make sense, rephrase your question and use simpler words.

The way your question is put together, you don't understand your own question!

'I cannot (not 'can not') get the following:' means 'I cannot understand what comes next:'
And what comes next is your question: 'On the other hand,...'.

Everyone tries to help you, but you're making it very hard.


edit : beaten by tunaafi
Topic: mouth comforting/ nothing of substance / correct
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:10:14 PM
Nima,

Quote:
All he does is mouth (to) comforting

You cannot put a 'to' in this phrase, so no, you're wrong. Speak to the hand

The rest of your question is incoherent and so I cannot help you with that.
Maybe others can make head or tails of it.Eh? Think d'oh!

Topic: such that
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:24:09 PM
Nima,

Quote:
I have asserted the fact that I am willing to use them together, so shouldn't they be considered as one object?

What are you trying to say with this?
Use what together?
Do you understand the meaning of asserted, because it doesn't have its place in this sentence.

Quote:
Finally, after that we will correct them

We will correct them!?. Unless you are suffering from a multiple personality disorder or are using the royal 'We', it should be 'I'.

Your conditional sentences are wrong and repeating them doesn't make them right.
Quote:
I am not willing to use your preferences.

If you don't want to listen to the inputs given, why even bother asking them?

The placement of the 'such' in your sentence is wrong.
..., they would have decreased the capability to conduct electricity such that ...

Here it means 'in such a way that' or 'so that'.
There is a difference in meaning with using 'so much' (= to this extent).
The result will still be that the alloy is not a good conductor.




Topic: I can’t account for this
Posted: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:51:27 AM
In this context, 'to account for something' means 'to explain'.

So he's saying: "I cannot explain it, except by the fact that we were not ourselves."