Search results for 'tag:Synonyms tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Synonyms' and 'Constructions'

Re: "there are many of us" vs. "we are many"

MarvinTheMartian — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:34:30 GMT

Thanks, Clive. You took the words right out of mouth. One thing still puzzles me, though: if "we are many" is unidiomatic, then why is it acceptable to use constructions like "we are numerous" and "we are more numerous than them"? Aren't "many" and "numerous" supposed to be synonyms?

P.S.: To answer Avangi's question, my friend actually has two native tongues. His mother is Lebanese and his father is a Frenchman. Whether these are common mistakes among Arabic and French-speakers, I couldn't say. My French is rusty at best and my knowledge of Arabic is nil.

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:30:34 GMT

As a native English speaker (well perhaps not entirely native, I was born in Russia and immigrated to the U.S. at the tender age of 7) I would have to say that apart from the obviously difficult aspects of the English language such as tenses, an unorthodox phonetic system employed in the language and infuriating exceptions for just about every single rule, the two most puzzling features are the Verb+Participle+Preposition combinations and the sheer vastness of the vocabulary. Observe the former...

come+up+with

come+down+with

come+foward+with

come+out+for

come+down+to

Five different constructions which would be clear as day to any native speaker, are nevertheless mind-boggling to someone who is learning the language. Notice how they all start with "come", and then imagine that sort of illogical word-scrambling applied to every verb. Daunting, isn't it? Don't know how to break it to you folks, but I haven't even scratched the surface.

Now as to the latter, I am more than happy to have dictionary.com present proof of this phenomenon in my stead. Let's take a look at the word "jump". I mean, how many possible synonyms could there be for this word? Well, one simple search can help us find out. Here's the link:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/jump

40 entries for the first definition alone. FORTY. Forty different ways to say jump. But when you break it down, do all 40 words have the same meaning? Of course not! Nosedive means to jump into something headfirst, as in a pool of water or (if you're very unfortunate) onto a hardwood floor. To spring is to jump up energetically, with an almost almighty "lurch" (another word for jump right there :P) whereas to "bob" means to make jumping motions without every actually taking your feet off the ground. The list goes on and on. No other language I'm familiar with has such variety when it comes to synonyms, be it for seemingly uncomplicated actions or deep philosophical concepts.

Although English is my native language, I am also a nearly native speaker of Russian (I give credit to my parents for preserving the language of the "motherland" and passing it on to me) and fluent in German. I find Russian to be an incredibly expressive language with just as many (if not more) nuances as English, and its ability to convey feelings of dislike, anger or downright hateful fervor (i.e. swearing) is, in my experience, unmatched. German is an incredibly logical language, and once grammar constructs are mastered, relatively straightforward in its application. Mastering German grammar is a challenge however, and word order is an utter nuisance in some situations.

Just my two cents.

Do little

Dido — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:30:07 GMT

Any suggestions to change 'do little' for a synonym?

Deconstruction has done little to assess the relation between...............

Re: use (noun) and usage?

Marius Hancu — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:18:17 GMT

As shown here, they are not synonyms in the meaning 1c:

--------
usage

1 c : the way in which words and phrases are actually used (as in a particular form or sense) generally or among a community or group of persons : customary use of language

<like all grammarians, he professed to base his work on actual usage; in fact, however, he ... gave his approval only to such constructions as met his rigid notions of logic and propriety -- G.H.Genzmer>

<instruct pupils in the rules of good usage>

2 a : the action, amount, or mode of using : USE <the corners somewhat smashed and broken as by long, rough usage -- R.L.Stevenson> <steadily increasing usage of the nation's highways -- J.C.Nelson> <freshmen students are given a brief period of instruction in library usage -- Bulletin of Meharry Medical College> b : manner of conduct toward a person : TREATMENT <complained of ill usage at the hands of his jailors -- threats, scanty food, beatings>

3 : UTILITY, ADVANTAGE <we can fell trees and put them to our usage -- George Moore>

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
--------------

Re: He might come. or he may come

Marius Hancu — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:46:53 GMT

From a lawyer's site (they are careful with the language ....)
---
Q: Is there any difference in the meanings of may and might, as in "I may go," and "I might go"?

A: In the two examples the correspondent provided, may and might are often used interchangeably. But they are not exact synonyms; The word might is somewhat less definite than may, sometimes expressing a greater degree of doubt.

In addition, both may and might contain meanings apart from "possibility," which is their meaning in the examples the reader submitted. May indicates permission rather than possibility in the context "May I go?" May also sometimes expresses purpose, as in, "Write so that the average person may understand." This usage is old-fashioned, however; currently the word can is more often used in this context.

Might expresses a condition contrary to fact in constructions like, "She might be here if she had received your letter in time." It is also infrequently used to express polite deference, in a question like, "Might I add a word here?"

As a substandard southernism, might appears in constructions like, "I might could do that." The standard English version of that statement would be, "I might be able to do that," a more cumbersome way of expressing ability.

http://www.illinoisbar.org/Association/0110-15g.htm

Re: Pls note / be noted that.....

Marius Hancu — Mon, 15 May 2006 12:39:07 GMT

Pls note: please observe/remark, you should observe/remark that

It is noted: it is observed/remarked that

the 2nd is a passive and impersonal construction

--------
note

3 a : to call attention to in speech or writing : make separate or special mention of : REMARK <the odds, someone noted, were stacked ... in favor of the house -- T.H.White b. 1915> <notes with gallant approval the civilizing influences of British administrators -- Hal Lehrman> <the magazine noted his understanding of international problems -- Current Biography> b : to indicate or show <records fail to note what became of him> <on this occasion she was merely noted as a member of the company -- F.C.Schang> <scales that can note the absence of a dime in a batch of thousands -- Buick Magazine>
4 obsolete : CHARGE, ACCUSE, BRAND -- usually used with of, for, or with
synonym see SEE

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002.
-------------

Re: Legality vs. Lawfulness

paco2004 — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:12:50 GMT

"Lawful" and "legal" differ in that "lawful" means to conform to the substance of law, whereas "legal" means to be in conformity with the form of law. "A lawful act" is an act allowed by law. "A legal act" is any act that is technically in accordance with the forms and usages of law. In this regard, "illegal" and "invalid" are very close in the sense. So, a contract, if it is executed without the required formalities, can be regarded as "invalid" or "illegal", but it does not necessarily mean the contract is unlawful. (EX) In Japan, marriage under 16 is lawful but subject to various legal requirements.

"Lawful" more clearly suggests an ethical content than does "legal". "Legal" merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas "lawful" usually means a moral substance and/or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive", while lawful is not. "Legal fraud" is "fraud implied by law", or "made out by construction", but "lawful fraud" would be a contradiction in terms. "Legal" is also used as the antithesis of "equitable", "just". As a result, "legal estate" is the correct usage, instead of "lawful estate". Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. "A lawful writ", "a lawful warrant", or "a lawful process" is the same as "a legal writ", "a legal warrant", or "a legal process"

paco.

Re: "Since a long time ago"

paco2004 — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:28:32 GMT

Hello Anon

"Here were gold pencil-cases, little ruby hearts with golden arrows through them, bosom-pins, pieces of coin, and small articles of every description, comprising nearly all that have been lost since a long time ago." This is a sentence used in "Mosses from an Old Manse" by Nathaniel Hawthorn.

OED uses "since a long time ago" in the definition of "way-back" as below.
    way-back adverb, adjective and noun
   (definition) a long time ago; from way back ; since a long time ago ; through and through

An online dictionary gives a definition to "since a long time ago" as follows.
    adverb "since a long time ago"
    (defintion) since long ago; "she knows him from way back"  (synonyms) from way back

As told by CJ, there are some grammarians who take "since X years ago" as non-standard. But actually the expression is frequently used as you see above. But it is said the construction like below is grammatically wrong even as informal English.
     (x) It is four years ago since they attacked New York.
It should be:
     (o) It has been four years since they attacked New York.

paco

Re: "His being..." vs "Him being..."

Pinenut — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:15:48 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:
Hello Anon

It's possible to make a case for either form.

1. ...admit to his being a St Valentine baby.

Here, "being" is a gerund; the underlined portion is a noun phrase, and acts as the participial object of "to".

2. ...admit to him being a St Valentine baby.

Here, "being" is a present participle, and qualifies the object pronoun "him"; the underlined portion is again a noun phrase, and acts as the object of "to".

Some people might object to #1, in this context, on the grounds that it's difficult to see how "being a St Valentine baby" can sensibly be described as "his".

Some people might object to #2, on the grounds that the sense is not "admit to him being etc.", but "admit to him-being-etc." (Cf. "I saw him walking down the road": we can happily omit "walking..." But in your example, we can't omit "being...".)

MrP

If you take into account the usage and meaning of the verbal phrase, admit to, your #2 construction has serious flaws. You need a gerund after 'admit to'.

I quote part of the entry of amit from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

1 â¶ACCEPT TRUTHâ
[intransitive and transitive]to agree unwillingly that something is true or that someone else is right
'Okay, so maybe I was a little bit scared,' Jenny admitted.
admit (that)
You may not like her, but you have to admit that she's good at her job.
admit to somebody (that)
Paul admitted to me that he sometimes feels jealous of my friendship with Stanley.
I must admit , I didn't actually do anything to help her. Admit it! I'm right, aren't I?
admit (to) doing something
Dana admitted feeling hurt by what I had said.
freely/openly/frankly etc admit (=admit without being ashamed) Phillips openly admits to having an alcohol problem.
2
â¶ACCEPT BLAMEâ
[intransitive and transitive]to say that you have done something wrong, especially something criminal
ï¿synonym confess
ï¿opposite deny
admit doing something
Greene admitted causing death by reckless driving.
admit to (doing) something
A quarter of all workers admit to taking time off when they are not ill.After questioning, he admitted to the murder.
No organization has admitted responsibility for the bombing.

Re: About "too...to..."

Mister Micawber — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:56:08 GMT

Well, let me see if I can attack your concerns in a sort of slap-dash fashion. First, let me collect our sentences:

1: She is a too clever woman to stay in so boring a job.
1a: She is too clever a woman to stay in so boring a job.
2: She is too clever a woman to stay in such a boring job.
3: These are too tough questions to answer.
4: It's too dirty water to drink.
5: There are too many children to feed.

I'm going to ignore for a minute your and the dictionaries' comments, and just tell you I think that only 1a, 2 and 5 seem acceptable in written English, but that 1, 3, and 4, though they sound awkward to my ears, could well be heard in the spoken language. It is an unusual formation that lends itself to unplanned variations. (And of course we have the same situation with 'so boring a job' vs X 'a so boring job'.)

For the grammatical argument, Quirk et. al. have simply this to say:

'When an adjective phrase modified by 'too' in turn modifies a singular count noun, the phrase precedes the indefinite article. There is no plural or noncount equivalent for this construction. Instead, we have to postpone the adjective phrase.'

Hence, (1a) is correct, but (3) must read 'these are questions too tough to answer' and (4) 'it's water too dirty to drink'. I would think that part of the confusion arises from the additional use of 'too' as a synonym of 'very', as in 'that is too/very true' or (3) 'these are too/very tough questions to answer', as also it does from your exception in (5)-- 'two many children to feed', 'too little water to drink', etc.

With regard to your comment that 'dictionaries sometimes contain information useful
for only those who study old English', I am interested in whether you are speaking of the major English language dictionaries or of bilingual ones. The former do indeed contain a virtual history of a word's meanings, all of which are presumably still available for use, but many of which are indeed dated; this is often left for the native user to intuit, but a non-native user may not have the cultural grounding to do this.

On the other hand, in Japan at least, the popular bilingual dictionaries, because they must encompass two languages, usually contain only a portion of the meanings, and by the lazier editors these are skimmed from the top half of the original English source dictionaries-- which are also the historically oldest meanings, not necessarily the most current.