http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aConstructionsSearch results for 'tag:Constructions' matching tag 'Constructions'en-USXMOD (Build: 3715.30106)http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnybodyInQuestions/nbdxm/post.htm#1092647Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:32:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1092647for learningHello! I understand there are many different cases or constructions for both words to be explained in thi space. Now I am thinking of the following case: If you want to know if someone is going to come to your party, would you ask: "Will someone come to the party?". Right?. But if you are talking about some specific persons, for instance, Peter, Mary and Rose, and you refer to them. I think you would ask: " Will anyone(of them) come to the party?" I think I should think of other cases where I hesitate about which one to choose. But now they don´t come to my mind. I will ask ,then, when I remember. Thank you so much in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/In/nbdpg/post.htm#1092627Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:11:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1092627for learningThank you Avangi. Could I say, for example: "This is the classmate of whom I ´m so proud." and: "This is the classmate who/whom I´m so proud of" ??. I mean, can I always choose to put the conjunction(in this kind of constructions) at the end of the sentence or before the object??. I would bet I usually come across both ways interchangeably. Thank you.http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1090561Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:34:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1090561califjimWhat this tendency is determined by? This is in the realm of speculation, but I suspect that your idea about two subjects seeming to need (psychologically) a plural verb is probably the best explanation for this tendency. On analogy with not only ... but also conjuction? Can this syntactic variation be determined by ethnic and cultural peculiarities of English language usage? By anithing that I as a Russian language speaker do not "feel"? Here I would answer your three questions "no", "no", and "no". CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InCaseInTheCase/nrqwv/post.htmFri, 19 Mar 2010 17:54:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1090537musicgoldHi, Which one of the following sentences is correct? 1. Real estate construction is defined as a service in case of a pre-sale. 2. Real estate construction is defined as a service in the case of a pre-sale. Thanks, MG.http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1090119Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:46:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1090119rusalka"...but in less formal situations like everyday conversation, people tend to use only the plural, especially with neither ... nor" . I just try to andestand why. What this tendency is determined by? Do people think it's a notional agreement, and if there are two subjects so the verb should take a plural form? Or anything else? On analogy with not only ... but also conjuction? Can this syntactic variation be determined by ethnic and cultural peculiarities of English language usage? By anithing that I as a Russian language speaker do not "feel"?http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1089515Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:29:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1089515califjimThe rule says: the verb conjugates in number with the nearest subject. But what about real usage? As far as I can see ... the verb mainly takes the plural form ... What do you think? You are absolutely correct. The rule should certainly be used in any formal situation (including class work), (and in fact it can be used in any situation), but in less formal situations like everyday conversation, people tend to use only the plural, especially with neither ... nor . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1089130Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:16:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1089130ivanhr1. Neither Frank nor Lilly cares about their future. (the verb is sigular if both subjects are singular) From that sentence alone there's no way of telling whether they care about their future together or Frank cares about his future and Lily cares about her future. The context in which that sentence is spoken will usually clarify that. 2. Either my brothers or Jane is/are going to visit me/us next weekend. You will find both 'is and are' in sentences like the above. Whichever verb you choose they are still fundamentally inconsistent. It's best to rewrite sentences like that as My brothers or Jane are going to visit me/us next weekend.http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1089089Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:19:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1089089rusalka1. Neither Frank nor Lilly cares about her / his future. 2. Either my brothers or Jane is going to visit next weekend. Right? Or maybe: 1. Neither Frank nor Lilly care about their future. 2. Either my brothers or Jane are going to visit next weekend? The rule says: the verb conjugates in number with the nearest subject. But what about real usage? As far as I can see from literature (publicistic style) the verb mainly takes the plural form in these constructions. Why? What do you think? Thanks,http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceConstruction/nrkhn/post.htm#1088832Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:03:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088832cliveHi, Yes. But I'd remove the second 'on'. Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceConstruction/mdzld/post.htm#1088683Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:27:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088683pljamesDear Clive, Why I create long sentences I don't know. But it is something to work on. Thanks. I have a fanaticism to be understood. That to I do not understand. Thanks for your patients. (Email removed)http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htm#1088616Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:47:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088616califjimIn both cases, all you have to do is combine two subjects with the necessary conjunctions. The combined subjects then share the rest of the sentence. Try it and we'll check your work. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NeitherEitherConstructions/nrjmp/post.htmWed, 17 Mar 2010 21:19:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088593rusalka1. Frank doesn't care about his future. And Lilly doesn't care about her future. How to join up these two by using neither ... nor...? 2. My brothers are going to visit next weekend. Or Jane is going to visit next weekend. How to join up these sentences by using either... or...?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsConditionalSentenceCorrect/nrjgd/post.htm#1088560Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:45:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088560dimsumexpresswhat interests me is whether this construction "would be using" instead of just "would use" is okay and grammatically correct. Yes and No, for this type of conditional (the 3rd kind by the way) to work and sound smoothly to the natives' ears, the form should be used. This part is a no. Is it grammatical? I am leaning toward yes, but semantically speaking, it feels and sounds likes a pair of size 9 shoes on a Leprechaun (Happy St Partick's, and you can imagine the fit ) "If you hadn't lost our vacation money on a stupid stock, we would be crusing in the Caribbeans right now". The BOLD emphasizes the "would be" action under a given condition contrary to facts. The fact is we...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsConditionalSentenceCorrect/nrjgd/post.htm#1088550Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:43:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088550califjimwhat interests me is whether this construction "would be using" instead of just "would use" is okay and grammatically correct. It is correct. In fact, be using is is more idiomatic than use in this case. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsConditionalSentenceCorrect/nrjgd/post.htmWed, 17 Mar 2010 19:15:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1088479xenoHello, everyone. Here is the sentence: If Edison hadn't invented the electric light bulb, we'd still be using candles. This is from my English test at school. I know I got the right type of conditional but what interests me is whether this construction "would be using" instead of just "would use" is okay and grammatically correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AskQuestionTo/nrzlk/post.htm#1087462Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:51:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1087462califjimCan we write "Ask your questions to the captain" as opposed to "Ask the captain your questions" ? No. The verb ask takes only the double object construction, not the construction with to . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitiveAndGerund/2/nrrjj/Post.htm#1087372Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:43:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1087372dimsumexpressIt must be that tasks are usually expressed by an infinitive, I think. I don't think that is the reason. Whether infinitve is called for is depending on the context and constrcution of the sentnece, not noun specific. 1 ) Our main task has been finding out new solutions. 2 ) Our main job/occupation has been finding ou t new solutions. Hi Michals, Pardon me, but did you intend to mean that the main task or occupation is the subject and "has been finding out new soulution" is the result? That's what these two sentences are saying which is not what you really had in mind, is it ? I believe we can't use gerund (finding) in a construction like this and only infinitive will express the meaning correctly. So if I...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesParticiplePhraseModify/mqxcb/post.htm#1085894Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:15:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1085894califjimI thought of two ways. One is it modifies "short circuit", and the other is it modifies "a design flaw ～ computer system". You are looking only for nouns. Pariticipial constructions do not always modify nouns. causing ... acceleration describes neither the flaw nor the short circuit. ... a design flaw might trigger a short circuit ..., ... acceleration. The possible triggering of a short circuit by a design flaw (the event itself), if it happens, causes the unintended acceleration. So the participial construction is related to the verb trigger more than to anything else in the sentence. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesParticiplePhraseModify/mqxcb/post.htmSun, 14 Mar 2010 10:35:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1084941tashiroHi, teachers. Could you help me when you are free? "The network’s Feb 22 story illustrated a report by David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University professor who suggested that a design flaw in Toyotas might trigger a short circuit that would go undetected by the car’s computer system, causing sudden unintended acceleration ." What does the participle phrase " causing sudden unintended acceleration" modify in the sentence above? I thought of two ways. One is it modifies "short circuit", and the other is it modifies "a design flaw ～ computer system". I mean that in the second way I think "a design flaw ～ unintended acceleration." as a participial construction. Which is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoWithout/mpxnn/post.htm#1080338Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:26:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1080338califjimExtra features without which we can do It certainly brought a smile to my face! (I would definitely not use this construction if I were you!) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThatClause/mplwc/post.htm#1080145Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:57:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1080145califjimThese quotes are from "Introduction to the Grammar of English" by R. Huddleston (Cambridge University Press). "Apposition is used for a variety of constructions where one form (an NP in the central cases) is 'placed alongside' another, to which it is in some sense equivalent." (NP = noun phrase) ... Later, this example: the fact that John had overeaten Complement the fact that John had overlooked Modifier "The subordinate clauses here are respectively 'content' and 'relative' clauses ..." And "... traditional grammar treats and the like as involving apposition rather than complementation." Make of it what you will! CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpNeededLetterMotivationMasters-Application/mpxzx/post.htmTue, 09 Mar 2010 17:43:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1080092podge99Hi I am looking for some help with the context of what a motivation letter should be. I am applying for a MSc Environment and Resource managment in Amsterdam. I have a letter but am not sure whether the quality of the content is good enough. I would greatly appreciate any help on this letter. Below is the letter. It's not yet completely finished. Regards John Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my interset in applying for the MSc Environement & Resource Management beginning in September 2010. My goal is to work in the field of sustainable development related to reducing our environmental impact and increasing our use and knowledge of renewable energy, both in the developed and undeveloped world. Therefore, it is my aim to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BothTheYellowInColour/mpnpr/post.htm#1080000Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:53:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1080000philipI like to observe parallel construction: what follows one must follow the other (in this case the ). Neither....nor is another construction that should remain parallel. Another that is sometimes more difficult to achieve is not only.....but also .http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThatClause/mplwc/post.htm#1079500Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:26:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1079500ed_shawYou are pretty advanced. Maybe I should be taking my questions to you, now. I would ask, the phrase, "people are inherently evil," is it a noun phrase? Sometimes it seems putting "that" before almost anything turns it into a noun. Does the "that" in "that people are inherently evil" turn it into a thing; that is, a concrete entity, a fact? Because a sentence has two nouns side by side is no guarantee that an appositive construction exists. Example of a noun phrase: "The explanation claiming people are inherently evil is accurate." Are you to put a "that" in this one and call it an appositive? I would not say it would be wrong, but it could be taking analysis so far...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceStyle/mpmbr/post.htmTue, 09 Mar 2010 02:35:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1079432kbq123Can someone check out these answers for me? Thanks. 2 . For the following sentence, choose the edited version that improves sentence variety and is free of errors. (B) These videos are aimed at *** girls. The videos face virtually no competition in the home entertainment market. A. These videos are aimed at *** girls who face virtually no competition in the home market. B. Aimed at *** girls, these videos face virtually no competition in the home entertainment market. 3 . In the following sentence, decide whether the boldface words or phrases are parallel. If the elements are not parallel, choose the corrected sentence. Otherwise, choose "no change." (B) A former empirical nation may adopt food brought...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThatClause/mplwc/post.htm#1079360Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:38:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1079360ed_shawThe point of appositive construction is to eliminate words from the sentence, not add them. Appositives are normally two nouns, both meaning the same thing, placed in apposition. For example, "Scott's book Ivanhoe ...., " or, "The word death..." Subordinate clauses, adjective clauses, and appositives all may serve to add substance to a sentence. An appositive is sometimes thought of as a method, a technique, useful in the construction of thoughts, as much as it is cansidered a grammatical component. Appositives normally do not require an introductory element such as that and which is. Subordinate clauses often do. As often happens, inconveniently, contradictory opinions pop on the screen at the same time.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrowingListVsGrowingRate/mxcgh/post.htm#1078114Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:01:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1078114niueThanks, Dave Phillips. Let me explain what I've understood: "122. There is a growing __ of residents who oppose the construction of a shopping center on the corner of Kingston and Flag avenues. (A) anger (B) list (C) rate" The correct answer is B, "list". C, "rate", is not correct considering the usage. You can say "There is a growing rate of OBESIDTY/SUICIDE/etc. ...", but you can NOT say "There is a growing rate of RESIDENTS ...". A, "anger", is not correct because of the wrong indefinite article, "a", or the wrong preposition, "of". Let me show you some results I've got from searching yahoo.com. - "There is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectSentences/mxmrb/post.htm#1077136Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:45:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1077136ed_shawWe have completed the design of the first page and an inner page. Once we receive your approval and your authorization to continue, we will go ahead and write the HTML for the same pages. Further, we shall be sending you the rest of the pages once their HTML construction has been completed.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammaticallyReducedSentencesRelative-Clauses/mxpqh/post.htm#1075943Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1075943billjI agree with CB. Although you've managed to successfully integrate the two sentences, it would be better to use an agentless passive construction using the preposition ' with ': '.. used frequently with both should and were to' . Regarding clause reduction, I see 'stresses the unlikely...' as a 'zero' relative clause (where the relative pronoun 'which' has been ellipted), not a 'reduced' relative clause, whereas I see 'used frequently...' as a reduced relative with its nonfinite verb. And, 'still the subjunctive' I see as a noun Complement to the subject 'It' , meaning 'It is still the subjunctive'. BillJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammaticallyReducedSentencesRelative-Clauses/mxpqh/post.htm#1075717Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:42:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1075717cool breezeYou can't make an agent out of both 'should' and 'were'. It doesn't make sense. You can leave out some words from the original: It is a different construction, still in the subjunctive, but it stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Both 'should' and 'were to' are used for this. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammaticallyReducedSentencesRelative-Clauses/mxpqh/post.htmFri, 05 Mar 2010 11:19:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1075648english 1b3It is a different construction, which is still the subjunctive, but which stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Both 'should' and 'were to' are used for this. 1) Can this be reduced to this below? Why/why not? 2) Acceptable/or unacceptable in formal contexts? Why/why not? (It is a different construction, which is still the subjunctive, and which is used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but which stresses the unlikely nature of the situation) It is a different construction, still the subjunctive, used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Thank you.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectSentences/mxmrb/post.htmThu, 04 Mar 2010 09:02:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1074503archana chaudharyThis is to inform you that the design of the first page and a inner page has been completed from our side. Now we are looking forword for your go ahead for html of the same pages. Further we shall be sending you rest of the pages once their html construction is compleated.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IThesePhrasesHavingTrouble/mxkdn/post.htm#1074032Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:17:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1074032califjimCould you please help me correct these? Based on the info rmation we have, we can't determine the cause nor or the time of death. The negation is already in the verb can't . But you could say, more formally, ... we can determine neither the cause nor the time of death. The security features on this car make it so that if a pedestrian were to cross the street and you did n't ? see him, it would stop. There are always other? factors that come into play. If you're going over 100mph the car won't be able to stop in time , etc... (is the phrase COME INTO PLAY? Yes. ) make it so that if ... is an awkward construction. You might rephrase with more than one sentence here. I need to be facing the engine front...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AsStopWouldStop/mxdzk/post.htmTue, 02 Mar 2010 01:07:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071996english 1b3He sits on the horn as if it will stop the bus that is bearing down on us. Amazingly, it does. To express that something is counterfactual, we use the past subjunctive or the past perfect subjunctive. What if modals are concerned and we want to express that something is counter-factual? Do we shift the modal into the past form and write it like this? He sits on the horn as if it would stop the bus that is bearing down on us. Unfortunately, it doesn't. 2) Is this in bold subjunctive? (Some don't call constructions with modals the subjunctive...). 3) What use of would is this? Thankshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1071777Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:08:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071777billjIf you adhere to traditional rules, then yes, you should use a comma before 'but' where it separates clauses (of either type). As I said before, I rather suspect the reason is that although the conjunction 'but' in itself signals contrasting or opposite notions, some further help from punctuation in the form of a comma serves to add a little 'ballast' to that function. BillJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GrowingListVsGrowingRate/mxcgh/post.htmMon, 01 Mar 2010 18:56:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071721niueHi! I read the following question in an official TOEIC exam: " 122. There is a growing ________ of residents who oppose the construction of a shopping center on the corner of Kingston and Flag avenues. (A) anger (B) list (C) rate" Which do you think is correct? Thanks in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseAdvertisementDeconstruction/mxbln/post.htmMon, 01 Mar 2010 15:12:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071523lockieleonardAdvertisement that is deconstructed. This is a part of of my advertisement deconstruction that I have written (the advertisement is attached), I would really highly appreciate it if you could please proof read it and correct or suggest anything that can be improved grammatically and sentence structure construction as well as if there are better vocabularies to use: Here it is Good morning class, and Mr. Petri Readers are invited to read this advertisement in various types of ways .The way each reader will interpret the thought behind this advertisement is dependent upon their values, beliefs, thoughts, backgrounds and marriage status . For example, signifiers such as the rings, fresh coloured flowers,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1071508Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:04:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071508nacholibreThanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, I always use a comma before "but" when separating two clearly independent clauses, but with this sentence structure, I have always used without. So...are you saying that it is OK to use or not use a comma..or...are you saying that I MUST use a comma under the rules of grammar? Sorry to keep asking the seemingly same question, but I am having some difficulty understanding your reply. Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1071491Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:40:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071491billjWhat I meant was that using a comma with 'but' is traditional - sorry if I didn't make that clear. The conjunction 'but', when used to introduce a clause, typically signals a contrast or opposite fact, so a short pause can be seen as helping the reader to distinguish between the elements on each side of it. I suspect that's the reason a comma before 'but' is described by some grammars as traditional. Nevertheless, for some writers it's all about style; in other situations, avoiding ambiguity may be the priority. I've noticed that some always omit them, whilst others use a comma with 'but', though not with 'and'. You too have picked up on this inconsistency, which is causing...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ExpertsPhraseClauseTerminology/mxrpk/post.htmMon, 01 Mar 2010 10:59:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1071299english 1b3I saw two cars in the garage, one at the far end and one near the entrance . I saw to cars at the crime scene, one destroyed and the other fine . I saw two cars that the crime scene, one gradually moving, the other not moving . I saw two cars at the crime scence, one being used to hide the carnage . I saw two cars at the crime scene, one with its radio on . 1. Can I have the name for this construction please? 2. Is it ever preferred to write it as a full relative clause? (eg. one of which was at the far end of the garage...) Thankshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1070896Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:19:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1070896nacholibreAre you saying that it would be ok whether or not there is a comma? Or are you saying that there must be a comma in the "but" construction? I am very confused because I have always written sentences without a comma in such situations. But recently, I noticed taht NYT/New Yorker articles have both used/not used a comma in their sentences (don't they have an internal style guidline?)... And that link I provided was the only grammar site that seemed to directly address this issue. But because it was only ONE source, I am still in doubt...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1070887Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:13:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1070887billjThe point I was making is that the traditional punctuation rules for conjunctions separating main clauses like that hold true, whether or not there is some ellipsis in the second clause. BillJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1070856Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:25:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1070856nacholibreI am still unclear as to why "and" and "but" constructions are different if we are assuming that "he stated" is omitted. I found the following: Charlie must learn that eating all those sweets may give him a temporary pleasure but that it's not good for his heart and that he would feel better about himself if he stopped eating all those rich and sweet foods that are not good for him. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/quizzes/indep_clause_quiz.htm The site specifies that the sentence above is correct without any comma. It states that the only independent clause is "charlie must learn" and that the rest is all a dependent clause... Can you elaborate? ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htm#1070844Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:05:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1070844billjThe traditional rule with ' and ' is that you should use a comma if the subject in the second clause is different from that in the first clause, but you should not use one if the second clause uses the same subject (usually not repeated). So, in your sentences where the subject (he) is the same, it's wisest not to use a comma. However, with the conjunction ' but ', a comma is required. In each of your sentences the second clause is complete (for analysis/punctuation purposes). Although the subject ('he') and the verb ('stated') are omitted, they are what are known as 'ellipted', (left out to avoid repetition). Once the ellipsis is 'filled out' each one can stand as a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSentenceConstruction/mnqvj/post.htmSun, 28 Feb 2010 23:25:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1070822nacholibreHi, I am confused. Which of the sentences are correct? He stated that the building is tall and that the airplane is long. He stated that the building is tall, and that the airplane is long. He stated that the building is tall but that the building is badly designed. He stated that the building is tall, but that the building is badly designed. I am thinking the two sentences without the comma are correct because the second clause is not a complete one. But many sources, including New Yorker, have used a comma in such sentence structures... Please help! Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QAboutTenseSentence/mnjcc/post.htm#1068866Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:00:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1068866dimsumexpressThe "parked" question had been discussed here before. In American English, "you are parked" is considered incorrect if you meant to say "your car is parked in my space". So it's rather disfficult to answer your question as the voice is passive in construction. But for some, this has become acceptable as this utterance is used and heard more and more by people who pay no attention to correct grammar. If I could take the liberty to revise your sentence to: You are parking in my space, then it is present progressive, or you have just parked at my space which is present perfect. You are parked - from a grammatical stand point, doesn't make sense, unless you are a car.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WellComputerVaild/mnghz/post.htm#1067990Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:30:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1067990trysbHi, I would have written the second and third sentences together like this: All you need to provide is an eagerness to learn and a computer. You are right, there is no subject or verb in the last sentence. It is written as a person would say it in conversation. It is ok to use that construction in informal writing, but an editor might change it to: All you need to provide is an eagerness to learn--well, that and a computer. to show the connection between the two sentences. TrysBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UnrealTenses/mnzwv/post.htm#1067733Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:57:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1067733ant_222Unreal tenses use the past tense for present situations and the past perfect for past situations. For example: This is true for constructions like "I would rather + clause", "I wish + clause" and for the antecedent of 'unreal' conditionals. In your further examples the structure is "I would rather + verb", which is completely different. Here "I" is the subject and the verb is bound to it. Each of the structures has its own use. When speaking about yourself, say: "I would rather kick the ball". When speaking about your desire (or preference) toward someone/something else, say: "I would rather he kicked the ball". These structures are not interchangeable at all. Is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ASummaryAnyoneCheck/mnvlq/post.htmThu, 25 Feb 2010 16:36:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1067480kbq123Thank you! In Russian, Bolshoi meant big. In his article “Bolshoi Troubles”, author Kevin O’Flynn has identified two bolshoi factors impeding the progress of the Bolshoi Theater’s reconstruction: embezzlement accusation, and deep divisions within the internal. Bolshoi was founded in 1776, and has suffered numerous times from fire, bomb, and human mistake. In 2005, Bolshoi moved into restoration. But after four years, the budget of the restoration project has reached $1.5 billion RUB, and its reopening date has been delayed twice. The budget’s inflation was suspicious, and according to O’Flynn, the cost of repairing the Audit Chamber, “was sixteen times the original estimate” (O’Flynn, 2009, p. 49). The public...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IOrMe/mndkc/post.htm#1067250Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:27:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1067250billjStricly speaking, 'he's taller than I am' or 'He's taller than I'. But in speech most people say 'He's taller than me.' I agree, but there is a conflict between the two constructions: In H'es taller than me , 'than' acts as a preposition, so the objective pronoun 'me' is correct; whereas in He's taller than I am, it is a conjunction . The trad grams say we should use the subjective pronoun 'I', but, as you say, most people say 'me'. BillJ