Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Difference between'

Re: there's no point

Clive — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:30:58 GMT

Hi,
1.what's the difference between "there's no point doing something" and "there's no point in doing something"?
None, really. It's just that 'in' can be omitted.

2.There's no point complaining him/ to him?It's not a transitive verb.You need 'to'. Or some other preposition, eg about him.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:00:02 GMT

Anonymous
I agree with you on this but I wonder what is your opinion on this.

This playground is for playing soccer.
This playground is for the playing of soccer.

In this situation, I feel the first sentence pattern is what a person will see more often out there in written form or in verbal situations, but I don't think the second one is wrong. Is it wrong? Both seem to be filling the position of a noun.

Thank you for agreeing with me. However, agreeing isn't necessary at all. Diversity makes life interesting! As for your sentences, I have already explained my opinion about structures like these, but if people disagree with me, that's just fine. I don't mind in the least.

In the first sentence, playing is a gerund required by the preposition for. With an exception or two, all prepositions require a gerund in English. Soccer is the object of playing, in other words it indicates what is played in the playground. A noun cannot have an object, yet playing clearly has one in the sentence, so playing is not a complete noun. Verbs have objects, and the fact that a gerund can have an object is its verblike property.

I consider playing a complete noun derived from the verb to play in the second sentence. I am accustomed to calling such nouns verbal nouns, but I understand that others may use the term differently. The and of show that playing is not a gerund - although some grammarians prefer to call it by that name even in this context. Almost any noun can be placed between the and of: the name of this town, the history of our country, the Las Vegas of the Far East.

Moreover, a noun can have an adjectival attribute: This playground is for the occasional playing of soccer. This clearly proves that playing is not a gerund in the second sentence, that there is a grammatical difference between playing in the two sentences. You wouldn't say: This playground is for occasional playing soccer. All nouns can have an adjectival attribute; this playing can't, so it's not a noun.

Re: one of those who and one of whom

Avangi — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:53 GMT

"Who threw the stone?" (reply) "It is one of those who are angry." I don't think "one" is the subject of anything here. It's a predicate nominative, or "complement" of the verb "is." "It" is the subject of the sentence, and "who" is the subject of the relative clause, "who are angry." The relative clause modifies "those," which is object of the preposition "of." Those who are angry are a group of angry people, one of whom threw the stone. But you would have to rephrase the sentence in order to make "one" the subject.

"Nobody in this group is angry. It is one of those who is angry." (Note that "who" may be singular or plural.) This time, "one" is still the verb complement. "Who is angry" is still a relative clause. The chief difference between these two interpretations lies in the answer to the question, "In the relative clause, what does "who" refer to?" In the first interpretation it refers to "those." In the second one it refers to "one." But that doesn't entitle "those" and "one" to be called subjects.

Your sentence "It is one of whom are angry" has a couple of things wrong with it.

"One" is now the bona fide subject of the clause, "one of whom is angry." "Whom" is object of the preposition "of," but unfortunately it has nothing to refer to.

A group of people are partying in the next room, one of whom is angry. In this sentence, "whom" refers to "group."

Re one of those who / one of whom, the difference is often only a technicality. She decided to give it to one of those who love her. She decided to give it to one of those whom she loves.

The key lies in the subject and object of the clauses. In "who love her," "who" is the subject, "love" is the verb, and "her" is the object. In "whom she loves," "she" is the subject, "loves" is the verb, and "whom" is the object.

"Who" and "she" are nominative case, "whom" and "her" are objective case.

Best regards, - A.

Re: INCREMENT LETTER FOR EMPLOYEE

New2grammar — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:38:42 GMT

As you probably know, I'm not an expert. I don't dare to correct your letter for fear I would make it worse. What the heck. Here are a few comments for what it's worth

We are ~~Glad~~ glad (maybe pleased) to inform you that you have sucessfully completed your ~~probartion~~ probation period of three months in "Company Name" .As per the your performance , recommendation of [from/by] your Project Manager & the ~~comitment~~ commitment "Company Name" had with you at the time of your appointment, (i can't understand what you're trying to say) your salary has been increased by (by or to, depending on what you want to say. I believe you know the difference between the two prepositions)........Rs.

Starting from (the month of )August you will get (more formal, use 'receive) .. Rs as monthly salary in hand (I don't know why you put 'in hand'. You could be right) .

I wish you for the better performance in the future . (It doesn't sound natural to me. Maybe all the best instead?)

I hope a native speaker will look at it and comment. As I said, I'm just a learner.

Re: The difference between 'who' and 'whom'

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:31:05 GMT

Thank you. I think I was confusing the first one with the second one.

I don't like the boy who you are pointing to.
I don't like the boy whom (not 'who' - I am sure) pointed his finger at you.

Then, again. If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.
I don't like the boy to whom you are pointing.

Re: The difference between 'who' and 'whom'

CalifJim — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:54:52 GMT

Anonymous
I donât like the boy to whom you are talking
I donât like the boy who you are talking to

They are both correct, right?

Yes. They are both correct.

Anonymous
I think "I don't like the boy who you are talking to" is incorrect.

Sorry. You think wrong. You can always use who instead of whom when you leave the preposition 'stranded' at the end. Use whom for very formal contexts.

It would be quite idiomatic to leave out the relative pronoun completely, thus avoiding the use of whom:

I don't like the boy you're talking to.

Re: tense

Skrej — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:11:31 GMT

Hi Newguest,

There is a slight difference in the time line between the first 2 sentences.

#1 means that you have spent 1/2 of this day (today) up the tree.

#2 means that you spent 1/2 of some day in the past (yesterday or further back) up the tree.

However, both sentences should use the preposition 'up' or 'in' instead of 'on'. 'Up' or 'in' a tree means you've climbed part way up it. 'On' a tree gives the impression that somehow you're sitting on top of the tree, like it's a chair or table.

For the second pair of sentences, both are equally correct. There's no real practical difference between her calling you and telling you (aside that calling implies she used a telephone).

As for substituting 'yesterday' for 'Monday' again, yes, both work with no difference (aside from the amount of time that's passed).

the difference between from and out of

eagerness — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:41:19 GMT

Since an English is not my native laungauge, I, therefore, have been struggling with chosing the right preposition. In this case, from or out of. Whenever I need to use this kind of preposition, the first one that always comes to my mind is from. The majority of people, on the other hand, use out of. For instance, out of my pocket, out of nothing. My question then would be"What is the difference, if any, between from and out of, and if there is any, please kindly explain to me when each of them is used?

Thank you in advance for your help and, of course, your valuable time.

'At' and 'in' in their time meaning

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:48:23 GMT

I would like to know the difference between these prepositions when speaking about smth. what happens during a period of time or process.
For example behold these sentences (not mine):
1. Moreover she can break to pieces a good thing at such moments.
2. But it is impossible to work here without strict discipline in general and particulary at period of fulfilling arduous tasks.
It seems to me that there is something wrong with them. If you could, give please some correct examples of 'in' and 'at' when talking about a proces or a period of time.

charged with/in

New2grammar — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:26:39 GMT

An Alabama man who went scuba diving with his new wife who died during the dive has been charged [with/in] her death.

What's the difference between the two prepositions?
Thanks