Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Punctuation' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Punctuation'

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

Re: grammar help needed

Clive — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:42:40 GMT

Hi,

1) Where I think we need to carve out some territory of definition in practice is to say that proselytism is relating to people different from oneself by using means and methods with ulterior motives in order to convert. But what's happening in secular literature is that it is moving even beyond the ulterior method definition, where some secular specialists on human rights and international law use proselytism to mean "any attempt by religious believers to win converts from other religions or from your religion." And when we see proselytism move into that extensive and broad an expression, it then curtails on the invitation to witness and to make meaning for people, in terms of engaging them around the validity of Christian perspective.

Can an be deleted? No. Kindly check punctuation usage in the above passage and insert punctuation where needed. You might consider not starting sebnetenes with 'But' and 'And'. Could you perhaps say 'However' and 'Moreover'?

(2) They have a vision for what I would call “soul care,” without the same vision and commitment to social care. May I suggest to us that mature evangelists have discerning minds that believe in the whole counsel of God? May I suggest to us, as you listen to that definition, that evangelists are not restricted to religion?

May I suggest to us, as we think about engagement, can we first of all give permission and take permission. That is to say, people have the right to self-define. I also need to take the responsibility to self-define.

Is the usage " May I suggest to us" ok? Please check It seems a bit oddd to say 'us' here. Why not just say 'May I suggest'?

(3) We have surrendered to life-denying violence that simply incites more deadly and devastating violence.

Is the usage of " We have surrender to" ok? Please check.

(4) Half of them were Muslim and half of them were Christian. This is OK, because the two words are used as adjectives.

Should the above sentence have a plural usage "Half of them were Muslims and half of them were Christians." This is also OK, but the two words are nouns.

(5) We need more modeling of how to deal with diversity in positive ways.

Can of be replaced with on? Please check. Either is acceptable.

(6) One of my appeals in the Canadian context has been that, if we had been better at dealing with diversity between us as Christians in this country, we would be relating to cultural diversity in a lot more positively today than we are at this point.

Is the in insertion ok? Please check. No, you need to remove it.

Best wishes, Clive

grammar help needed

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:13:24 GMT

(1) Where I think we need to carve out some territory of definition in practice is to say that proselytism is relating to people different from oneself by using means and methods with ulterior motives in order to convert. But what's happening in secular literature is that it is moving even beyond the ulterior method definition, where some secular specialists on human rights and international law use proselytism to mean "any attempt by religious believers to win converts from other religions or from your religion." And when we see proselytism move into that extensive and broad an expression, it then curtails on the invitation to witness and to make meaning for people, in terms of engaging them around the validity of Christian perspective.

Can an be deleted? Kindly check punctuation usage in the above passage and insert punctuation where needed.

Is the usage " May I suggest to us" ok? Please check

(3) We have surrender to life-denying violence that simply incites more deadly and devastating violence.

Is the usage of " We have surrender to" ok? Please check.

(4) Half of them were Muslim and half of them were Christian.

Should the above sentence have a plural usage "Half of them were Muslims and half of them were Christians."

(5) We need more modeling of how to deal with diversity in positive ways.

Can of be replaced with on? Please check.

(6) One of my appeals in the Canadian context has been that if we had been better at dealing with diversity between us as Christians in this country, we would be relating to cultural diversity in a lot more positively today than we are at this point.

Is the in insertion ok? Please check.

it's my second draft.

nocy — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:46:42 GMT

it's my second draft. please give me any advice. i want it to be natural to read.

expression,grammar(especially, pronoun is difficult), punctuation marks etc..

this is my first trial of english composition.

=======================================================

Wisdom for Money

For a long time, people have had a tendency to believe that money is the

root of all evil. Even those who were rich and in high class didn't like to talk

about money. As far as I know, this is because in the Bible, richness is

considered as evil. For example, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of

a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." However, can

we do anything without money, these days? I guess nobody can answer "yes."

Thus, it is certain that money is essential to us. What we should do is not to

avoid it but learn about how to use it. We need wisdom for money.

First of all, we have to know how to save money. If we know a little bit

about the tax system, we can save much money.

For example,

( i have to write an example here, but it isn't easy to find )

Secondly, we need to know how to spend money. If we spend money

with the plan about how to spend, we will not waste money. ( here, too )

In conclusion, money is such an important part of our lives that we should

be able to control it. Although there are proverbs and stories in which money

seems to make human beings corrupted, that is actually not because of money.

This is because the way to control it is wrong. If we use it properly, money can

give us not only richness but also happiness. We need wisdom for money.

== THANK YOU FOR READING

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

------------------------------------------------

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

Re: Commentary on Hamlet's soliloquy

Clive — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:28:49 GMT

Hi,

Where you have put semi-colons, I'd usually use commas. I have also suggested some other changes to your punctuation. My general advice is not to get into the habit of using semi-colons and colons. They can often make tyour meaning more obscure rather than more clear.

You seem to have a very good understanding of this topic. I've broken up your one huge paragraph into two. Are there any other ways you can make your organization clearer to the reader?

Best wishes, Clive

Commentary on "To Be or not to Be"

In this soliloquy Hamlet sparks an internal philosophical debate on the advantages and disadvantages of existence, and whether it is one's right to end one's own life. He first asks himself thoughtfully whether it is nobler to bear the miseries of life or to take arms against them; but since both passive and active resistance are doomed to failure, he regards death as a mean to end oneâs sorrows once and for all. He sees death from a Medieval perspective, as physical liberation from the prison of the body (the âmortal coilâ); but he also symbolizes the doubt of the Renaissance man, concerning the after life. Indeed he faces an obstacle, that is to say the fear of âwhat dreams may comeâ in that sleep of death. If death were like a dreamless sleep, it would be easy to put an end to the misfortunes of life with a single stroke, but since we donât know what to expect in the afterlife, we havenât courage enough commit suicide. He says that the troubles of life are such that no one would willingly bear them, but our cowardice makes us âbear those ills we have / than fly to others that we know not ofâ.

In his soliloquy, Hamlet uses various gramatical structures to express his uncertainty, such as the infinitive forms. His speech takes shape slowly because of its thoughtful nature. The climax is reached when Hamlet lists the injustices and miseries of life, concluding that it would only take a small does his word 'mere' mean 'small' or does it mean 'unimportant'? knife to bring relief. He also uses metaphors, such as that of the mortal coil, that of the unknown country from where no traveller comes back, and that of the opposition between the pale cast of thought and the native hue of resolution. This one in particular helps us understand that for Hamlet courage is the ability to cross the border between life and death; but most people are cowards and this cowardice, through âthe pale cast of thoughtâ, makes us stay alive. The soliloquy elevates Hamletâs individual case to an universal level; this is achieved through the use of the plural pronouns 'we' and 'us', the indefinite 'who', and the impersonal infinitive. Its problematic nature is shown by the insistent use of interrogatives, while the internal struggle within Hamletâs mind is pointed out by the use of images from the battle-field (âslings and arrowsâ, which has become an idiomatic expression, and âto take arms against a sea of troublesâ). In the middle of the soliloquy we can find an enumeration of lifeâs misfortunes; while reflecting upon the nature of death Hamlet uses a repetition (âto die, to sleepâ). Finally, we can find a term from the financial semantic field, âquietusâ.

Re: : vs. ?

Hoa Thai — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:05:00 GMT

Clive wrote:
Hi,

Very generally speaking, the expression 'How about these?' in writing often seems infelicitous and imprecise.

Clive

Hello Clive,

Thank to you, I've just learned a new word, infelicitous!

If you don't mind, may I pose a few more questions to you?

Question #1: The phrase 'very generally speaking' of yours tells me that the expression 'How about these?' has very little use in writing. So could you kindly show me a few cases when its use is not infelicitous and not imprecise?

For me, the few instances I use that expression are:
a) when I want to follow another question with a final question as an after thought; for instance: Do you think this word is acceptable ....? How about these (list of words) ? Of course, this pattern caused me to ask the original question (i.e., the placing of the question mark when a bulleted list is involved);

b) when I want to embed a suggestion in a question mode. I like to use a question tone more than a direct suggestion tone, not because I lack confidence, but because I feel that suggestion tone is rather pompous when the suggested item(s) is/are not factual and more on the imaginary / abstract side (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). From what you shared with me, in the future I will try to rephrase it in different way such as "Would you like to consider one of these alternatives:"

Question #2: What do you think of the italicized and underlined construction in part a) ? Is there a better alternative? (Perhaps, I should not write anything as an after thought, but I guess for forum exchange it is tolerable).

With special thanks,
Hoa Thai
P.S. By the way, could you kindly suggest anything I could / should change in this writing to make it better (grammar, punctuation, word choice, semantics, etc...)

What are areas of weakness?? grammar, spelling , punctuation etc.

Aliwaqasmalik — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:02:58 GMT

Dear teachers kindly check this short aticle and highlight my weak areas and give me score out of 10. Grammar, Punctuations, expression etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President of Pakistan as a chief of Pakistan Army staff declared the state of emergency in Pakistan today. In this recent speech to the nation he announced the reasons behind this act. These are:non coordination among the pillars of state, rising religious extremism.

Presidentâs act of declaring emergency can be seen as an act of realism. Realism states that human by nature can not be true,nice and honest all the times. He always tries to protect some interests. As a president of a country, Musharraf has the right to do anything illegal and evil in the benefit of Pakistanâs national interest. According to him the prime interest of Pakistan in the restoration of democracy and for this âstate of emergencyâ is inevitable. In his message to the critics he said,â Do not expect the level of democracy you learnt over a period of centuries. We are trying to learn it and I know we are doing well. Do not expect the level of human rights you learnt over a period of centuries. We are trying to learn it and I know we are doing well.â He also quoted the statement of Abraham Lincoln , âSometimes we amputate limbs to preserve life; similarly, presidents must occasionally violate the Constitution to save it.â He says that he is violating and suspending the constitution to save it.

Non coordination among the pillars of state â judiciary, legislatives and executivesâ is the main cause of this recent emergency. The situation started after a presidential reference against the chief justice of Pakistan, Chudhry Iftrkhar. The reference brought a wave of law violation ad mass level and involvement of political elements in the protest against the reference. Supreme judicial council gave decision in favour of Justice and Govt. accepted the decision. Afterwords there erupted a legal war among the pillars of state where judiciary was the main dominating factor. This resulted in a chaos and unstable Government.Pakistanâs presidential elections 2007 were plunged into this war too.

There is a rising wave of religious extremist in Pakistan.July 2007 Lal Masjid militants in Islamabad, march 2004 to present Talibans in Wazeristan and FATA and oct. 2007 Swaat operation are recent examples of this. Moreover, Judiciary is continuously victimizing the Govt. in Lal Masjid crisis. 100 arrested people were freed by supreme court of Pakistan. President says that those people might be a part of recent bomb blasts in Pakistan.

What do to next? In Musharrafâs view, â Democratic transitionâ will continue as normal. He will be launching the 3rd phase of this transition â a fully democratic elected Government under a civil president , Musharraf if elected â. He defines democratic transition as a continuous process in which first he maintained the military rule upto 2002 then from 2002 to 2007 a fully functional democratic Govt. under a military president and now the third phase.

Act of announcing emergency was right or wrong itâs your own choice. But these were the views of Mr. President.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Most fair or fairest?

Cool Breeze — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:49:31 GMT

I'm not particularly meticulous about punctuation. If I understood you correctly, you are asking whether there should be a period after fair in my sentence? I didn't use one, someone else might.

The absolute superlative is one of the least fixed structures in English; there are cases in which it is identical with the relative superlative. It is quite amazing that my native language has always helped me with this point of grammar - amazing because Finnish isn't even an Indo-European language! Russian and English are related, Finnish and English are not! Nevertheless, in real-life situations people seem to behave and speak more or less the same everywhere. As absolute superlatives are always remarkably different from relative superlatives in Finnish, I never have trouble as to when an absolute superlative should be used in English. I am sometimes surprised at the form it takes, though.

Examples of absolute superlatives in English:

The book is most interesting. (= very interesting)
This is a most interesting book. (= very interesting)

Easy so far. You just use most instead of very.

I'll do it with the greatest pleasure. (Quite peculiar. The same as the relative superlative would be!)
You have been most kind. (= very kind) Really odd! Kind is a short adjective and the superlative is normally the kindest. Why don't they say analogously with most kind: I'll do it with most great pleasure?

As to your sentences:
1. Clearly the most importance because most + a noun would mean more than 50 percent:
Most cats like milk.
He took most of my money.

2. He is (at his) most dependable when he is given some freedom to do what he wants.
Not: the most dependable because we are not comparing him with other people. We are comparing him with himself. In the same way:

The lake is (at its) deepest here. (= The deepest point of the lake is here.)
But: This is the deepest lake. (= deeper than any other lake)

Again, Finnish helps me - or I should say helped me as a schoolboy - because a Finn will never confuse the two expressions in his language. They are so different: (at its) deepest = syvimmillÃ¤Ã¤n; the deepest = syvin.

Cheers
CB

Re: An incorrect sentence formation or incorrect punctuation?

Clive — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:51:47 GMT

Hi,

in these two expressions, there is no verb in either phrase to express a predicate. so, does the error lie in an incorrect formation of a sentence <<< YES or an incorrect use of a punctuation? thank you.

the lad from belfast; the one and only george best.

the legend of christmas; the one and only santa clause.

These are not sentences. They are just phrases.

It's like saying 'The table' or 'The table; the chair'.

Best wishes, Clive