Search results for 'tag:Marriage tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Marriage' and 'Clauses'

Re: article sentence analyses

Clive — Thu, 15 May 2008 03:15:36 GMT

Hi,

I was reading the May 14, 2008 (May (Web-only) article of the ChristianityToday magazine titled "Double Divorce" by Sarah Pulliam and have the following questions.

A paragraph from the article:

Wheaton's Community Covenant requires the upholding of "the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman." The college employee handbook states that the college will consider retaining a divorcing employee "when there is reasonable evidence that the circumstances that led to the final dissolution of the marriage related to desertion or adultery on the part of the other partner."

Recopy of the above paragraph:

Wheaton's Community Covenant requires the upholding of 1)"the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman." The college employee handbook states that the college will consider retaining a divorcing employee 2)"when there is reasonable evidence that the circumstances that led to the final dissolution of the marriage related to desertion or adultery on the part of the other partner."

1. No 1 seems to be just a lifting of words for a highlighting purpose. I think I have asked in the past about this but didn't seem to have gotten clear answers. Does a lifting of words or phrases or clauses for a sole purpose of emphasis or an illustration allowed? No quoting of anybody's words but a writer's desire to hightlight the words or phrases or clauses.

I don't fully understand your question. If you are asking if it is OK to quote words from another source, the answer is that it usually is. Often, the source should be acknowledged. This particular phrase is very commonly used by people who support this aspect of marriage.

2. No. 2. seems to be a partial lifting or quoting from a source, in this case, it seems to be the college employee handbook. I think the writer could have quoted more but have decided to put quotation marks on that portion only for his purpose. Correct? Yes.

3. Do you need to italicize what looks to be names of an online magazine, student newspaper and blog in writing? No, you don't have to use italics. It's just a matter of choosing a suitable style and using it consistently. Various style guides offer different ways to do this. Colleges often give new students instructions on which style to use. I would say that, before the advent of personal computers, italics weremuch more uncommonly used for this purpose.

I think I have the name of a newpaper not italicized in writing. Partial sentences from the article:

..., Gramm told Christinity Today in an e-mail

Wheaton's student newspaper, The Record, found ...

..., Alan Jacobs, wrote in a First Things blog post that ...

4. I have trouble with the phrases like "less of something" or "more of something" or "less a thing" or "more a thing" -- when do we put "of" there and when not?? I' say the simplest approach is just to think of these as standard, set phrases. You can say 'less of a need' or 'less need', 'more of a need' or 'more need'.

From the article:

"We leave issues like spiritual discipline in the hands of the churches, so there's less of a need for us to handle these issues," Calvin spokesman Phil de Haan said.

Best wishes, Clive

article sentence analyses

Anonymous — Thu, 15 May 2008 02:46:50 GMT

Hi,

I was reading the May 14, 2008 (May (Web-only) article of the ChristianityToday magazine titled "Double Divorce" by Sarah Pulliam and have the following questions.

A paragraph from the article:

Recopy of the above paragraph:

3. Do you need to italicize what looks to be names of an online magazine, student newspaper and blog in writing? I think I have the name of a newpaper not italicized in writing. Partial sentences from the article:

..., Gramm told Christinity Today in an e-mail

Wheaton's student newspaper, The Record, found ...

..., Alan Jacobs, wrote in a First Things blog post that ...

4. I have trouble with the phrases like "less of something" or "more of something" or "less a thing" or "more a thing" -- when do we put "of" there and when not??

From the article:

"We leave issues like spiritual discipline in the hands of the churches, so there's less of a need for us to handle these issues," Calvin spokesman Phil de Haan said.

Re: Help proofreading "A Doll's House"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:53:58 GMT

I have underlined some problem areas:

The Woman Within the Doll

The Baltimore Sun wrote that back in 1879, âA Doll's Houseâ by Henrik Ibsen âshocked and offended people wherever [it] was played,â and that the dramatist assured it was not about a woman, but about âanyone who had to live according to the rules created by othersâ (Hyder). Society thought to be outrageous that a woman would get involved in manly things, for her role in society was exclusively to care for the family and please her husband. Women did not enjoy the rights women do now. They were not taken seriously, and decisions were made by the man who was and still is considered the head of the family. Nora's choice to become free, independent and leave her husband, along with some of the characters' actions made this play to be scandalous for its time.

Ibsen wrote in a letter that the story in âA Doll's Houseâ was about a woman who feels:

" Oppressed and bewildered by belief in authority, she loses her faith in her own moral right and ability to bring up her children... [She is bittered because,] like certain insects, (ought to) go away and die when she has done her duty towards the continuance of the species... [she shakes] off of cares, [but then she feels] a sudden return of apprehension and dread. She must bear it all aloneâ (Doll).

Nora had a beautiful life, she had a husband, beautiful children, and everything she wanted. Earlier in her marriage, his husband suffered of an illness of which he needed to recover somewhere in the south, but this was concealed from him by the doctor and Nora. Not having the means to afford a trip so costly and out of love and desperation, Nora decides to ask for a loan without letting Tolvard know. She forges her father's signature to obtain the loan because she does not want to trouble her father either, who is very ill himself too. However, she is responsible and works secretly from home in order to make the payments. Eventually, Tolvard finds out about her secret and feels that his life, happiness and reputation will be lost once Krogstad, who lent the money, publishes the then scandalous situation out of revenged for having fired him from the bank he now manages. He quickly turns against her. That is the moment when Nora starts to understand things she did not understand before; she realizes she does not love Tolvard anymore just as he does not really love her as she thought, and decides to leave for good to discover herself. [Too many pronouns-- I don't know who's doing what to whom]

The scenery consists of the Helmer's apartment and nowhere else. The description of the apartment depicts the decision that Nora will have to make. There is a door to the right which leads to the entryway and another to the left which leads to Helmer's study. Nora will have to decide which door to take: freedom or Helmer [Tolvard / Helmer: we don't know if they are one or two]. The place is not âexpensively furnishedâ, but it is comfortable, just like Nora's marriage, she lives a comfortable life, but there are certain things she lacks that are more important than riches. No woman could even consider back in the 1800s doing such a scandalous things as to leave not only the husband, but her children too.

The main character in the story is Nora, a seemingly selfish, materialistic woman who cares a lot about money and in living a good life. This is to be expected since her father liked to spend money himself and live a life he could only could afford with credit. He used to called her his âdoll-child, and he played with [her] the way [she] played with [her] dollsâ (Ibsen 1041). She was obviously very protected and spoiled by both, her father and her husband, who provided anything she needed or wanted. Her father raised her not think for herself and just play her role in society. âWhile [she] was at home with [her] father, he used to tell [her] all his opinions, and [she] held the same opinions. If [she] had others [she] said nothing about them, because he wouldn't have liked itâ (1041) [All the bracketed pronouns are distracting; it would be better to give the exact quotes]. This repeated again as a married woman; she would not express her opinion to Tolvard, for they never talked seriously, but seemed to have trusted Dr. Rank better. Norah was greatly misunderstood. She was a loving person, she loved her husband so much that she was willing to forge her father's signature to obtain a loan to take her husband south in order for him to recover from a deadly illness [You said all this before; cut it.]. She is willing to do anything for him. Eventually she realized she does not have to play the doll anymore. One can only imagine people's reaction throughout the play's events.

Tolvard Helmer seemed [Be consistent in verb tenses] to be an ideal husband. He is loving, admirable, honest, ethical, hard-working and successful, but there seems to be a dark side of him. He is a prideful man, he won't ask for money to anyone, to [Commas are not conjunctions.] do so would be humiliating. To him, honor and appearances are more important than family. He does not believe people can change and become good, as he did not believe Krogstad was a good person although he had been honest for a long time already. Also, he is so affectionate that makes one wonder of his sincerity; he calls Nora diminutive names such as featherbrained, spendthrift [These are not diminutives.] , a squirrel, a song-bird, lark, strange little being all the time (994). One cannot think of a woman who would like being called like that and who would not be affected emotionally. Tolvard's reaction after finding out Nora's secret is amusing. He had told Nora that sometimes he wished â[she] was in some terrible danger, just so [he] could take [his] life and soul and everything, for [her] sakeâ (1038), yet he quickly turns against her calling her a wretched woman, a criminal, unprincipled, untrustworthy of raising her children, incapable, etc. His hypocrisy is clearly revealed when as soon as he realizes that Nora's mistake won't affect his reputation he forgives her (1039-1949). There's a saying that goes something like a good friend is hard to find, specially during difficult times; Tolvard was nor a good friend neither that perfect husband he seemed to be. He loved to have control of his wife's life, and his conversations usually tend to imply that Nora would be lost without him; that she needed his guidance and teaching. Tolvard did not love Nora, â[he] thought it fun to be in love with [her]â (1041).

Dr. Rank is in love with Nora, and that seems to have been the main reason he visited the Helmer's house. This character is not essential in the play, but it causes outrage when he dares to reveal Nora his secret. This is almost vulgar for him to do, and very dishonorable, specially during those times in which people were very conservative. It is as if he had taken advantage of the trust the family had in it and ended up tarnishing his reputation.

Mrs. Linde is one of Nora's old friends from school. She gave up her true love for money, but in the end things did not turn out the way she had expected. Her husband died leaving her in a terrible financial situation making [On the other hand, commas are essential for separating dependent clauses.] it necessary for her to work in order to sustain her mother and brothers. After her mother passed away and her brothers did not need her help she left town. Not to have someone to take care of made her feel âcompletely alone in the worldâ, and it frightened her âto be so empty and lostâ (1032). She needed âsomeone to take care ofâ, she wanted to be a mother and wanted the companionship of a husband. In the end, she was supposed to have helped Nora hide her secret. She could have convinced Mr. Krogstad to get the letter back, but she did not intercede (1033). She might have been envious of Nora, after all, Nora had all she was longing for; a husband, beautiful children, and a good life.

Lastly, Krogstad is the one who lent Nora money to save her husband, and threatens her to tell her husband if she does not convince Tolvard to let him keep his job at the bank, but just as Nora did, he once made a mistake, which caused him to loose his reputation. He was a man who seems to have been harden by life's difficulties. When he was left by the woman he dearly loved âit was as if all the solid ground dissolved from under [his] feetâ (1031). This might have caused him to become the âhalf-drownedâ kind of man, as he refers to himself. After finding love in his life he turns from the revengeful person into a forgiving one.

In conclusion, Nora realized of her true value as a human being and as a woman. She decides to leave everything and everyone, husband, children, luxuries to a journey to liberate herself. To do such thing was unthinkable at that time and caused turmoil, but it was the best choice she could ever make. To leave one's children is a terrible things to do and was not necessary, but looking beyond that, without prejudices, it is not hard to understands she is trying to figure out who she really is and what she believes in. This is essential to one's happiness; therefore she is determined to make necessary changes in her life even if people think bad of her. It seems that daring to do so back in the 1800s was just as bad as selling drugs or prostituting oneself.

Re: cheating comes in many forms, not just students cheating on test

Grammar Geek — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:59:21 GMT

Some people cheat to get ahead some cheat to lie and others just cheat for the fun of it. Cheating happens everywhere you go weather its because a student wants a better grade in a class, or a married man or women cant resist the sex appeal of another person. Cheating comes in many forms, not just students cheating on a test.

A student sometimes would do almost anything for a better grade in a class. Weather they get a smarter friend to do there homework, or maybe even go online and purchase that essay thatâs due in English class You don't have a main clause here.. Some students even go as low as copying off each other, or even breaking into the school and stealing the answer keys. Some kids have a way of thinking that some will never get caught?. I think if we show our children at an early age right from wrong maybe they will study more instead of wasting ~~the~~ time trying to cheat.

Cheating and having an affair One thing or two? is probably ranked really high ranked really high is an odd word choice here in the cheating category and is probably happening more then what we know. Cheating when you are married is a big no but it is still happening all over the world. I think someone who is feeling unloved or unappreciated may begin looking outside their marriage for sources of comfort and get that emotional need. In your introduction, you said it was not being able to resist sex appeal I once seen in a movie a married man and women having an affair, it seemed to me like they enjoyed the rush that it gave them and getting caught some how turned them on and thatâs what made it so much better for them.

Cheating happens because of temptation and desire, the student wanting the better letter grade, and the married couple that is not getting the emotional comfort from there loved one. Im sure everyone at one time has done some form of cheating weathers its accidentally if is accidental, can it be cheating? looking on some one elseâs paper, or lying on your taxes, some im sure worse then others . Like I said before, teach our children early right from wrong, and all we can do is sit back and hope for the best.

Wrong words are in aqua. Comments in pink.

Re: Which one is correct? (conditional clause)

Goodman — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:56:34 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Hi Goodman
I searched for 'run into troubles' but found 'run into trouble' instead. The following is just one of the extracts.

Oxford University Google Search

Oxford University > Search Oxford University > Search Results

powered by

Search the Web Search ox.ac.uk

Web Searched pages from ox.ac.uk for run into troubles. (0.06 seconds)

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
(If you run into trouble with this the simplest option is to abort the integral routine and try again!). You. may now have to adjust the slope of the ...
www.chem.ox.ac.uk/spectroscopy/nmr/PDFs/ac_user.PDF - Similar pages

Liat,

Fine, if you believe and insist that what you learned is true, I don't want you to change your opinion on my behalf.

I know you searched for "if you run into trouble...".Have you tried others? (when you..../ should you.../ in case you ...?

My point is, the book's answers don't always explain everything. In this case, "troubles" as in the plural context discussed, is just as valid as it's singular cousin.

One can have trouble with marriage, job and finance at the same time, so what is wrong with plurals, as in "having troubles"!

Re: grammar

Hela — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:51:13 GMT

Dear friends,

Concerning subject-verb concord this is what I found in grammar book:

"1. In English the verb usually agrees with the subject even if the verb is separated from its subject by prepositional phrases, relative clauses, brackets or commas:
eg: The petrol station across the road from the new shops has just cut its prices.

2. However, if the verb is a long way from the subject but is closer to a complement, it is possible to agree the verb with the complement:
eg: The most exciting event was the rowing finals.
The most exciting event in the Sydney Olympics for most British viewers was / were the rowing finals.

3. The same can apply after what used to introduce a relative:
eg: What the Board needs to address now is / are the terms of the redundancies."

But is doesn't say what should one do if 2 or 3 constituents of a same subject are separated by a relative clause, such as in:

"With him were / was (both possible?) his American wife Fanny, whom he had met five years earlier in France, and his stepchildren from Frannyâs first marriage."

What is your view (or should I say "What are your views" since you're many ) about it?

Kind regards,
Hela

Re: the structure of sentence

Mister Micawber — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:33:28 GMT

Relative pronouns 'that/which' and 'who/whom' together with the 'be' verbs of a modifying clause are commonly elided:

The man [who is] sitting on the floor is drunk.
The man [who was] dead on the slab suddenly sat up.
It was a marriage [that was] made in heaven.
[Being] intent on the match point, I didn't notice the blonde in the front row.
The man [whom] I kicked kicked back.
etc.

Re: I have vs I have been

paco2004 — Wed, 04 May 2005 13:36:07 GMT

Hello Roro

As you know I'm an English learner and I myself am not so confident about between the simple tense and the progressive tense. So please use the following as something like junk food for your thought until native speakers give you more decisive answers.

Q.1)
I think you should change the tense of at least the second main clause into the past perfect. The revised version could be either;
[1]. "We have been married for three years, and had been very happy until I had some trouble with some very nasty loan-sharks about a month ago."
This one obligatorily implies you are still married. The duration you are married is 36 months and that you were happy was 35 months.

[2]. "We had been married and very happy for three years until I had some trouble with some very nasty loan-sharks about a month ago."
This one does not state anything about whether you are still married or not. What it is saying is only that you got married 37 months ago and you had enjoyed a happy marriage for 36 months before the troble started.

Q. 2) I would rather say ;
"My husband is sleeping. He has worked for all day long".
To me, sounds

Q.3).
"We have lived in Moscow for three years now."
As is a stative verb, you don't need to use a present perfect progressive tense unless you want to emphasize that you will live in Moscow furthermore.

Q 4).
"We lived in Moscow for three years before."
The word "before" indicates the event finished in the past. So in this case you don't need to use the past perfective sentence. But if you say "We had lived in Moscow for three years before we moved here", you'd better use .

This is my humble thought. Please wait until Ms Khoff or other native speakers come to give you better ansers.

paco

Re: Articles

MrPedantic — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:43 GMT

Hello Hela

Very good indeed!

I think I left the original on another pc, so will fish it out and post it as soon as I can. In the meantime (comments in curly brackets):

SHOULD I confess that I sometimes looked AT the door with a half-expectant wish to see IT open and give entrance to Mr. Weston, as had happened TWICE before? and [shouldnât âandâ be capitalized ? {It can be; but in more literary texts, you sometimes find a number of questions that make up one sentence divided in this way.}

that returning through THE lanes and fields, I often paused to look round me, and walked more slowly than WAS at all necessary--for, THOUGH a fine evening, it was not a hot one--and, finally, felt a sense of emptiness and disappointment at [or as ?]{Yes, 'as'}

I reached the house without meeting or EVEN catching a distant glimpse of any one, excpt a few labourers returning FROM their work? [interrogative form ?] {Yes, it goes all the way back to 'Should I confess'!}

Sunday, however, WAS approaching: I should see him then: for now that Miss Murray was gone, I could have my old corner again. I WOULD see him, and by look, speech, and manner, I WOULD judge whether the circumstance of her marriage HAD very much afflicted him. Happily I DID {no; you probably need 'could' here}

perceive no shadow of a difference: he wore the same aspect as he HAD worn two months ago âvoice, look, manner, all alike unchanged: there WAS the same keen-sighted, unclouded truthfulness in his discourse, the same forcible clearness in his style, the same earnest simplicity in all he SAID and DID (?), {Yes!}

that made itself, not marked by the eye and ear, but felt upon the hearts of his audience. [would you please explain that last part ?] {I suppose it means that his words weren't just read or heard ('marked by the eye and ear'); they were 'felt' in people's hearts. }

I walked home with Miss Matilda; but HE DID NOT JOIN US. Matilda was now sadly at a loss for amusement, and woefully in want of a companion: her brothers AT school, her sister married and gone, she too young to be LET / BROUGHT into society; [why do we have a semi-colon here ?] {Probably 'brought'. The semi-colon gives a sense of a string of ruminations. It's a pause for effect.}

for which, from Rosalie's example, she was in some degree beginning TO acquire A taste --a taste at least FOR THE company of certain classes of gentlemen; [why do we have a semi-colon here ?] {Ditto!}

at this dull time of year-- no hunting going on, no shooting even --for, AS she COULD not join in that, it was SOMETHING to see her father or the gamekeeper go out with the dogs, and to talk TO them on their return, about the different birds they HAD bagged. Now, also, she was denied the solace THAT the companionship of the coachman, grooms, horses, greyhounds, and pointers COULD / MIGHT HAVE afforded;{Yes, either}

for her mother having, notwithstanding the disadvantages of a country life, so satisfactorily disposed of her elder daughter, the pride of her heart [do we need a comma here ?] {No; 'the pride of her heart' is the subject of the clause}

HAD begun seriously to turn her attention to the younger; and, BEING truly alarmed BY the roughness of her manners, and thinking it high time to work a reform, SHE HAD {possibly 'was'}

roused at length to exert her authority, and prohibited entirely the yards, stables, kennels, and coach-house. OF course, she was not implicitly obeyed; but, indulgent AS she had hitherto been, when once her spirit was roused, her temper was not AS / SO gentle AS she required that of her governesses to be, and her will was NOT to be thwarted with impunity. After many a scene of contention BETWEEN mother and daughter, many a violent outbreak THAT I was ashamed to witness, in which the father's authority WAS often called in to confirm with oaths and threats the mother's slighted prohibitions --for even HE COULD see that 'Tilly, though she WOULD have made a fine lad, was not quite what a young lady HAD to be' {possibly 'ought'}

-- Matilda at length found that her easiest plan was to keep clear of the forbidden regions; unless she WOULD* (??) now and then steal A visit without her watchful mother's knowledge.

That was quite a difficult one. Except where I've stated otherwise, your version makes complete sense. When I post the original, I'll mark where it differs from yours.

See you,
MrP

Re: As if it happened yesterday

just the truth — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:58:13 GMT

Why can "happened" be used? Didn't it happen before "remember"? According to the rules, we should use "had happened". But "happened" does exist. Can you explain it more clearly, Mr Just the Truth?

JT: Sorry for the delay, Qingqing. {how do you say your name? I know a little Chinese girl named QinQin and her name is pronounced "chinchin".}

This has nothing to do with the use of the past perfect to discuss REAL events wherein we "go back when we are already talking about the past". These two clauses are unconnected in the sense that one expresses a counterfactual and the other expresses something completely real.

Remembering something is a real event. The counterfactual idiomatic expression is used simply to make a comparison to something that illustrates that it's EXTREMELY easy to remember. This is often used to state that something from long ago is fresh in 'my' memory.

By making this comparison, the speaker says a long ago event is as clear as if it happened yesterday.

Not all uses of the past perfect are as the rule suggests. Michael Swan, in "Practical English Usage" says of the past perfect; "A common use is to go back when we are already talking about the past". It isn't the only use.

Here we see that it has nothing to do with that rule because there can be no going back to an unreal/completely hypothetical situation.

But, nevertheless, we find that both of your example sentences are in common use, both are possible, both are grammatical.

What's the difference between the following two sentences?
I remember the whole thing as if it happened yesterday.
I remember the whole thing as if it had happened yesterday.

, like can add emphasis to simple past tense FORM statement like this.

We had hardly reached the confines of our bedroom, aaaactually we hadn't even reached the front door, before, ... well, truth be told we had not even reached the porch before we had torn each others clothes off, and had there fallen and finally our love, lust and marriage had all been consummated in one great explosion of exhilarating fire.