Search results for 'tag:Commas tag:Numbers' matching tags 'Commas' and 'Numbers'

Re: global warning

Avangi — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:49:57 GMT

Comma after "worse each year," to set off the smart remark.

I'd try to avoid the agreement issue with "number." Of course it's correct, but it's sort of unpleasant. If you removed "the number of ," then "number" would be understood. (That would probably be considered incorrect, although it's quite common.) It's okay to leave it as is, if you can't think of another way. - A.

Re: Any advice?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:46:09 GMT

The meaning is mostly clear but the structure of the document is not so obvious from the fragment you've posted, and the English could be tidied up in a couple of places.

Please see my update in my Excel sheet. [It's not very clear to me how this statement relates to what follows. In the context of the whole document it might be fine though. Unless you're sure that readers will know which Excel sheet you're referring to, it might be a good idea to be a bit more specific.]

Title: Number of indexes to have in each database table

Contents: ["Contents" usually introduces a list of section headings. Here it seems to be followed by the actual text of the explanation, which is odd. It may be that "Summary" is the word you want.] Having more indexes [delete comma] will certainly slow down the processing on the tables [delete comma] when INSERTING/UPDATING records. How to do you judge ~~(or consider)~~ this on the 10g [I'd normally expect this to be "10G", but if in your context it's conventionally written "10g" then fine] version (~~that means~~ 10th generation version) database? Is it a better choice to have ~~4/5 table indexes only~~ only four or five indexes per table? [I assume that you mean 4 or 5 per table?]

Re: organize a trip

Mr Wordy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:00:17 GMT

You have problems with spacing around punctuation, and you have spurious double spaces in a number of places. I have corrected these below.

The other changes that I made to the date formats are not because what you had was wrong, but just to make them all consistent.

Dear colleagues,

This year the company is to organize a vacation trip for all employees to Mui Ne Beach, about 200 km ~~away~~ ["away" is not necessarily wrong, but I think the sentence reads better without it] from the city center. Those who would like to join the trip should register with Miss Perry by February 15, 2008.

The trip is scheduled to leave for Mui Ne Beach [comma deleted] on July 15, 2008 and ~~come back~~ return ["come back" is not wrong, but I think "return" is better] to the city on March 5, 2008. [The return date is earlier than the departure date!]

Thank you in advance.

Re: or /nor

Tanit — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:58:19 GMT

Hi

May I quote an excerpt from M. Swan, 2005, Practical English Usage, 3rd edition. OUP. (para. 370.5 "Two negative ideas: not ... or / not ... nor") I posted some months ago in another thread?

Swan

When not refers to two or more verbs, nouns, adjectives etc, we usually join them with or.
...
However, we can use not after a pause, to separate and emphasise a second verb, adjective etc.
Our main need is not food, nor money. It is education. (More emphatic than ... food or money.)
She didn't phone that day, nor the next day. (More emphatic than ... or the next day.)
Note that neither cannot be used in this way.

In the other thread, I think I learnt that:
1. neither ... nor ... / not ... or ... are more common in everyday speech -- more "natural"
2. not ... nor ... (possibly with a comma before "nor") emphasises the second part, so it can be used as a stylistic (formal? rhetoric?) device.
I assume this could explain the number of hits returned by G.Books. Would you agree?

Re: how many (there) are

Goodman — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:51:58 GMT

Hi N2G,
This is my spin on the your article...

Derek voiced concerns about the future survival of various species of sharks, which are being captured and for their fins ~~for shark fin soup~~, ~~considered(~~comma),a rare delicacy in Asia and in the United States (in the U.S.? really! I never knew that)

"It's very difficult to know how many ~~there~~ are left in the world," Derek said. "Some studies show that in the past 20 years, the number of sharks were ~~they're~~ down 90 percent. ~~They~~ Sharks reproduce very slowly. I believe ~~I think~~ ~~that~~ unless people ~~just~~ stop killing the sharks for the fins which is a highly sought delicacy for certain cultures, I don't think the species has a chance."

"There" would be incorrect to use.

Re: Can someone please correct me

Grammar Geek — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:04:11 GMT

In the US, we use "on the weekend." In the UK, it's "at the weekend."

I suggest you bullet the list.

One issue is with "It is the employees' responsibility" -- which employees? When you leave it up to more than one person to do something, each may assume the other did it. You need to specificy which employee, or make it part of Security's job.

Another simply raises a question: Are friends and family never allowed on, so you're reminding them that it applies on weekends, too? Or is it a special rule for weekends. There's some ambiguity there.

Put a comma after "on duty," -- and possible provide the phone number to call. Instead of "rounds of the company" try "rounds of the property" or even "of the premises."

Re: Grammar Suggestion

Mr Wordy — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:08:18 GMT

(Again, I should emphasise that these are just my personal views. Some of the questions have no "right" and "wrong" answers, and other people may have different opinions.)

1. Sitting at my writing desk placed right-hand side of open window, and working on my English assignment, resulted in adventurous and fascinated experience in such evening soft sunrays.

This version is much better in terms of number of adjectives and length of clauses, but there are several other things that aren't quite right. First, "placed right-hand side of open window" should be "placed at the right-hand side of the open window" (this could also be expressed in several other ways). However, you're writing a "mood" sentence here, not a surveyor's report, so saying that it's on the "right-hand side" seems an unnecessary intrusion to me. What does it matter if it's on the right or left? Who cares? So, for the first part of the sentence, I would say:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, ...

Moving on, "Sitting ... and working ... resulted in ..." is grammatically correct but weak here. This form would be great for a sentence such as "Sitting in this chair makes my back hurt", but here it's not specifically the act of sitting that resulted in the experience you describe, it's the whole ambience. So, I would start the next part of the sentence like this:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, I ...

Then you need to complete the sentence to explain what you experienced and/or how you felt. You should be able to adapt what you had originally, but I'd question the word "adventurous". Of course, in this kind of sentence you can say you felt anything you want, but I suspect that "adventurous" may not be quite what you mean.

2. Today, in these natural colors, stepping inn through my hazel gray opened window, over the blue wall, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

Here, "stepping" is the wrong verb ("streaming in" would be fine), "opened" would be better as "open", and I'd be greatly tempted to delete "hazel gray". I'd also delete the comma after "colors": the way that you've punctuated it suggests it might be you that's "stepping in". I think I'd also change the word order, to end up with something like:

Today, in these natural colors streaming over the blue wall and through my open window, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

This is not the greatest sentence ever written, but it's progressing.

It's difficult to explain why I prefer "seemingly" to "seem to be". In "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away." there is, to me, a "jerk" as we move from adjectival phrases ("relaxed", "light as fur") to a new substantive statement ("the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away"). To me, "seemingly" better fits the descriptive mood of this part of the sentence. But if you were starting a new sentence then "seem to be" would be correct: "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur. The dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away."

Two or more adjectives can quite happily modify one noun, but the thing is not to overdo it. "His sweet soft smile" is absolutely fine, though some people would put a comma after "sweet".

Re: Any syntax problem with this?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:25:22 GMT

It's to transfer the Time format to a string.

If you have data of one type (say time), and you want to make it into another type (say string) then the usual word would be "convert" rather than "transfer". It's possible that "transfer" is correct if you are sending the data from one device to another, or one program to another.

"It's to" could be understood as "Its purpose is to", "It's required to", "It will" etc., but in written English it might be better to spell out in full "Its purpose is to..." or whatever it is that you mean -- unless it's already quite clear from the context.

When transferring that, we should have got decimal numbers. Is there a way ~~for~~ of transferring that, [like 12:15, that is what I do expect to have]?

Again, it's possible that you mean "converting" rather than "transferring". The part I put in square brackets doesn't read correctly but I'm struggling to offer suggestions about how to fix it because I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

But I have the formulas within the report to handle ~~with~~ the null values.

~~I do have~~ Sincere thanks for your previous help!

Since now I can't talk to you in MSN, could you please have a look on at my attached report source with the Excel output, if possible? Now the only problem is: not all column headers can be seen in the Excel output.

How about the average salary, in USD, of each Malaysian?

This sentence is OK provided that there is some context to indicate what "how about" means. (I also added a comma in there, in case you missed it!)

Re: subordinate clauses?

26TMNTJG2PG — Sat, 24 May 2008 09:01:01 GMT

I think the two number 2's should be correct instead according to one of the functions of commas stated below:-

The comma is often used to separate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first.

After I brushed the cat, I lint-rollered my clothes. (optional comma)
I lint-rollered my clothes after I brushed the cat. (no comma)
[FROM ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29]

Re: subordinate clauses?

Jackson6612 — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:57:34 GMT

Anonymous

Why are number 1's correct, whereas number 2's are not? Please note the commas.

First Part:
1. Stealing is illegal, because it is a crime.

2. Stealing is illegal because it is a crime.

Second Part:
1. Fishing is important to us, since it generates a lot of income.

2. Since fishing generates a lot income, it is important to us.

I can understand what thing is baffling you. In the First Part you would be thinking about the use of that comma. I don't think that the second sentence is incorrect. Sometimes what choice of words/punctuation an author uses in certain expressions is completely at his discretion. So both sentences in the First Part are correct. because is used when stating the reason for something. In the following sentence no comma is used in front of because. The President has played a shrewd diplomatic game because from the outset he called for direct talks with the United States...

Now come to the Second Part. since is used to introduce reasons or explanations. since=as. since can also be used at the start of the sentences but only when the sentence begins with the subordinate clause. e.g. Since you are unable to answer, we should ask someone else. In that sentence you cannot use since in front of we because the clause starting with we is the main one. The second sentence is also correct. It's just that it starts with the subordinate clause.

Kind regards,
Jackson