Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Formal letters' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Formal letters'

Re: Hi, I have a questions about my letter to my professor.

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:29:20 GMT

You wrote these sentences to respond to the original inquiring post: :

This is very informal - were you asked to do an informal letter or an essay?

Other than that, my main impression is that you haven't really answered the question - only a few words about your impression of the class.

I like your use of dashes -- they flow naturally and seem to convey your thoughts naturally. Having said that your first sentence of using a simple sentence and following that with a question with a dash to connect both is very interesting. In your second sentence, what follows the dash isn't a clause, nor does it seem to link to the previous clause in a way that natually connects them but rather have done in a way that is connecting but rather distant structually.

How can I use to learn to use a dash like you have done? I looked at online sources for help but they don't seem to go in detail about this punctuation mark.

Re: Why is "Can you show me the way how you did it?" incorrect?

Cool Breeze — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:01:40 GMT

Tanit wrote:
In these compositions, something like "The man whom you spoke to this morning is my father" would be considered inappropriate in terms of register and consistency, while something like "The man who you spoke to this morning is my father" would be considered inappropriate in other contexts (for instance, formal letters or reports).
So, I'd say it depends on your target reader, not on BrE or on exams.

Hi Tanit

In my opinion it depends in a large measure on the marker's attitude, broadness or narrowness of mind, experience in using English, exposure to the many varieties of the language and - quite often - nothing rational. For you, and anyone who is interested, this is what the Random House Unabridged Dictionary says about who and whom:

âUsage. The typical usage guide statement about the choice between WHO and WHOM says that the choice must be determined by the grammar of the clause within which this pronoun occurs. WHO is the appropriate form for the subject of a sentence or clause: Who are you? The voters who elected him have not been disappointed. WHOM is the objective form: Whom did you ask? To whom are we obliged for this assistance? This method of selecting the appropriate form is generally characteristic of formal writing and is usually followed in edited prose.
In most speech and writing, however, since WHO or WHOM often occurs at the beginning of the sentence or clause, there is a strong tendency to choose WHO no matter what its function. Even in edited prose, WHO occurs at least ten times as often as WHOM, regardless of grammatical function. Only when it directly follows a preposition is WHOM more likely to occur than WHO: Mr. Erickson is the man to whom you should address your request.
In natural informal speech, WHOM is quite rare. Who were you speaking to? is far more likely to occur than the âcorrectâ To whom were you speaking? or Whom were you speaking to? However, the notion that WHOM is somehow more âcorrectâ or elegant than WHO leads some speakers to hypercorrect uses of WHOM: Whom are you? The person whom is in charge has left the office.

I find their opinion very sensible, but I also have a broad enough mind not to object vehemently to those who think differerently. I favour a lenient line with regard to what is correct, natural and acceptable. What is natural to some may be unnatural to others.

If you are interested in correctness, you may want to read another thread that deals with it.

Cheers
CB

Re: Am without I

khoff — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 04:46:12 GMT

It's sometimes called "telegraphic style" - as if you were sending a telegram and paying for each word, you would leave out some words to make it shorter. You might write like this in a diary, or in a very informal letter, especially if almost every sentence would otherwidse begin with "I."

In the other example you give, "I like to write, surf the net, and am also a member of the International Club," you need the "am" because what follows it is not a construction parallel to "I like to write" and "(I like to) surf the net." It's not a great sentence either way - I wouldn't say it's incorrrect (with "am") but it seems to me that in a list of three things they should be parallel in construction. I would prefer either a more parallel construction : "I like to write, surf the net and attend the International Club" or else two more distinct clauses: "I like to write and surf the net, and I am also a member of the International Club." (without a comma after "write" it looks less like a list.) I'm not sure what the appropriate grammar rules here are, I'm just trying to explain why the original sentence sounds rather awkward to me.

Re: Two days ago

Mister Micawber — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:55:14 GMT

Morning, Non Con--

'Better'? I would probably use the past perfect here if I were writing a thesis, a careful formal letter, or a piece of literature (and I think I would be overconservative in doing so). What would I say if I were talking about my wierd friend, Jack? 'Jack sang in the park again this morning-- he did it yesterday too-- and the day before!' Or something like that. I think the neutral use sits with the simple past.

Points to consider:

(1) there is a noun phrase clearly indicating the past in the past ('the two previous days')
(2) there is, however, no conjunction indicating the temporal relationship ('as'?)
(3) the pragmatic reason for the clause is to indicate the continuity of his singing habit; it is not to make clear that he had finished singing on the 27th and 28th when he began on the 29th.

(1) and (3) point to the use of the simple past; (2) would encourage the use of the past perfect.