http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aUsagesSearch results for 'tag:Usages' matching tag 'Usages'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaventDontHave/lqvpp/post.htm#998787Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:42:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998787gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Meowth, You can express the same idea in three ways: a. I haven't a ticket. b. I haven't got a ticket. c. I don't have a ticket. Of all these alternatives, a is chiefly used in British English and is elevated as well as very uncommon from the point of view of the present-day use of English. Considering that William Somerset Maugham wrote 'Of Human Bondage' as far back as in 1915, this usage perfectly fits into his writing style. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Test/lqddn/post.htm#998683Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:07:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998683gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Coloraday, an interesting observation you have made on the usage of these adjectives, and thank you for sharing it. However, there are strong reasons to prefer only one of the options suggested in the multiple-choice cloze, viz. embarrassed. 1. In a strictly psychological sense, emotion is defined as a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others . Broadly speaking, any of the suggested options can be classified as manifestations of emotions. Emotional can be explained in the following way: if someone is or becomes emotional they show their feelings very openly, especially because they are upset. In the gapped sentence the meaning of every word is general,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfAllowFor/lqvvz/post.htmWed, 25 Nov 2009 09:54:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998568mrpernicketyHi, Could you tell me if a native speaker would use the two words "allow for" in the following way? This approach will allow us to redirect the user to another site seamlessly. In other words, this approach allows for seamless redirects to other sites. Thanks in advancehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldWouldLikeTo/lqdvq/post.htm#998534Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:02:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998534norwolfThank you very much, Clive. Thank you all. We should pay attention to not only grammar but also usage.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAdverbEver/lqcjk/post.htm#998428Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:47:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998428dimsumexpressNo. That perception is correct. It's just that in my answers I don't like to get into the more advanced or unusual usage until I'm sure that the learner has mastered the basics first. Thanks Jim for the validation. I thought I need to clarify it for my own sake. You are absolutely right about the "never" presumed answer in this type of "how many" + "ever" question. Happy Thanksgiving!http://www.englishforums.com/English/GiveOffer/lqcnd/post.htm#998426Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998426janeleohi, I just googled and found some instances of these two words usages. They are mostly used in these interview cases. 1. After the Job Interview Offer(it's the noun here) : What Next? 2.How to give good interview(means how to present a good interview yourself)http://www.englishforums.com/English/GiveOffer/lqcnd/post.htm#998423Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:31:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998423janeleohi, In my opinion, I think give is too colloquial and too direct (it is not the right and polite way of speaking to the person who interview you) , while offer sounds strange to be used in this sentence. I can not say using these two verbs is wrong, but they are not common usages in English.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAdverbEver/lqcjk/post.htm#998382Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:10:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998382califjimIs the notion that "ever" has a challenging element in these questions an incorrect perception? No. That perception is correct. It's just that in my answers I don't like to get into the more advanced or unusual usage until I'm sure that the learner has mastered the basics first. The use of how many times and ever together gives just the meaning you suggest. It actually expects, or even assumes, that the answer is Never , i.e., "no times". As such, it is not a real but a rhetorical question, a question that can express various emotions such as frustration, anger, or superiority, or can be a sort of reprimand. I think it is probably the logical contradiction we feel when we take the question literally...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SpokenEnglish/lqcgc/post.htm#998039Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:19:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998039ivanhrJust google for different usages of 'would'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatsMeaning/lqbnq/post.htm#997903Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:13:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997903gleb_chebrikoffDear friend, but is sometimes used to mean 'only', and this usage is considered formal, eg ...Napoleon and Marie Antoinette, to name but two who had stayed in the great state rooms. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htm#997308Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:13:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997308avangi1. He took lodging in his parents' house due to high rent rates. "Sought lodging" would be less odd that "took lodging," under the circumstances, but it's not very currenthttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htm#997304Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:08:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997304mrpernicketyI hear "take up lodging" as the beginning of an indefinite stay, possibly long term. "Take lodging," except with birds and other critters, strikes me as very temporary: "We took lodging for the night." Hi, Avangi That makes sense. Thanks a lot for the pointers!http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997294Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997294mrpernicketyThat's an interesting point you've made. I never looked at it that way. I think I understand you. (like you must be sober to drive and you must be careful in driving) Thanks for expatiating on it! (Prepositions are treacherous.)http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htm#997293Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997293avangiIn passing, could you tell me if there's any significant difference between "take lodging" and "take up lodging" ? I agree with Khoff, except for the the birds' selectivity. It may well be the case, but I don't hear it as implied in your sentence. I hear "take up lodging" as the beginning of an indefinite stay, possibly long term. "Take lodging," except with birds and other critters, strikes me as very temporary: "We took lodging for the night."http://www.englishforums.com/English/AsWellAs/lpqkv/post.htm#997291Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:55:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997291dimsumexpressIs as well as considered a parenthical phrase? Should it be set off with commas? Thanks! My non-linguistic view thinks not. I may be wrong but one of the "as well as" usages has a prepositional property which is typically used after an article "and" is used in the main clause. Example: My hobbies are swimming, jogging, fishing, and dancing as well as hiking. Another usage pattern is that it has the element of "and". John is my best friend as well as a business partner.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997268Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:28:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997268avangiIt may seem like we have a team of dead horses here. We can apply a lot of virtuous adjectives to the process of preparing for an exam. You must be diligent / persevering / thorough in preparing for the exam. (Perhaps you're normally a lazy, careless person.) The important distinction is that "X to prepare" describes the kind of person you ARE before the preparation. You must be sober to prepare for the exam. "X in preparing" describes the WAY you handle yourself during the preparation. You must be careful in preparing for the exam. Damn the prepositions, anyway! If you say, "You must be careful to prepare for the exam," that means. "Make sure you do it!"http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htm#997208Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:03:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997208mrpernicketyThanks, Khoff! In passing, could you tell me if there's any significant difference between "take lodging" and "take up lodging" ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997116Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:30:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997116mrpernicketyHi, Pernickety. I hate beating dead horses, but a revisit to this clause tells me I didn't explain myself. The problem is the nature of the verb "to prepare." In your example, it describes what may well be a long process. "Are you ready to prepare for the exam?" "How ready should you be to prepare for the exam?" (Did you sleep well? - take your smart pills?) Yeah, after you posted your reply, I racked what was left of my brain and tried to stack up your correction against my wrong example to work out the difference and all of a sudden it hit me! My sentence made about as much sence as a crock of S.. in my living room "Jane is not studious enough to prepare for an...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997104Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:10:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997104avangi2. They are always asking me how studious a student should be to prepare for the finals Hi, Pernickety. I hate beating dead horses, but a revisit to this clause tells me I didn't explain myself. The problem is the nature of the verb "to prepare." In your example, it describes what may well be a long process. "Are you ready to prepare for the exam?" "How ready should you be to prepare for the exam?" (Did you sleep well? - take your smart pills?) In other words, we're talking about the preparation for the preparation. "How studious should you be to prepare for the exam?" "Jane is not studious enough to prepare for the exam! (She's plain stupid!)" (She never will be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htm#997049Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:58:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997049khoffNo, I would say it's not very common. I would never say someone "took lodging" with their parents -- it suggests that the parents run a boarding house and the son is paying rent. Just say "He moved back in with his parents..." (2) isn't bad -- it somehow suggests (to me at least) that the birds considered several different places and selected this one as the most desirable.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTakeLodging/lppph/post.htmMon, 23 Nov 2009 14:29:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997023mrpernicketyHi, Is it common practice on US soil to use "take lodging" as a substitute for "take up residence"? For instance, do you find the following sentences odd in any way? 1. He took lodging in his parents' house due to high rent rates. 2. A flock of birds took up lodging in the attic of my friend's house. Thanks in advance!http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#996877Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:24:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996877michalsThanks, Avangi. I see your point now.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#996629Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:56:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996629yankeeI remember the day that he came. We aren’t going for the simple reason that we can’t afford it. Why do you think "that" might be an adverb in those two sentences, Debpriya De? The word "that" is very often used as a relative pronoun, and that is what it is in your sentences. It refers back to a noun and introduces a relative clause. The word "that" refers to "day" in your first sentence, and to the word "reason" in your second sentence. Using "that" as an adverb is a very limited/specialized sort of usage. Look again at the examples I posted earlier. In my sentences, the word "that" modifies the adjective or adverb that comes after it and the meaning is similar...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaUsage/lpnhx/post.htm#996334Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:16:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996334grammar geekAccording to the strict rules, if you have two complete sentences joined by the "and" you use the comma. So, your should NOT have the comma, the second should, the third should not, and the fourth should. In practice, if the two independent clauses are very short, that comma is often omitted, and if you want the speaker to pause -- to draw attention to the contrast, for example -- you can put in the comma even if you don't repeat the subject. I would NOT use the comma that way in your first and third. Why do you want to sing on the bed? Do you stand on it and sing into your hairbrush?http://www.englishforums.com/English/MyAwayReadingBook/lpnvl/post.htmSun, 22 Nov 2009 20:27:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996262akdomAnyway, my take away from reading about verb tense in novels and from talking with Seth Harwood is that some people think writing in the present tense is modern and other people think it is trendy and annoying. Is take away an idiom? I couldn't find this term in my dictionaries online. The only thing I found is that British ppl use it as 'takeout foods.' Would you explain to me that if the above usage is correct? normal? popular?http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageRateEvent/lpldq/post.htm#995681Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:20:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995681mister micawberIt can be set within a sentence if set off by commas, but it is awkward there.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#995076Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:24:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995076avangiWhat do you mean by 'idiomatic'? Are you saying that "Wow! She's too beautiful!" means 'not really beautiful'? I know for a fact that too means also 'very' in a formal register, for example: "Thank you, you are too kind." Hi, MichalS. I think we're on the same page. "Idiomatic" is good, not bad! If a person's speech is in the style and manner of a "correct speaking" native speaker, we'd say, "He's idiomatic." "His speech is idiomatic." "The expressions he uses are idiomatic." Idioms are also idiomatic, but they're special rather than normal. They use normal words in special ways. Edit. I guess...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfRatherAndInsteadOf/lpzwr/post.htm#994941Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:52:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994941cliveHi,, Yes. The repeated words are often omitted. 'Often' indicates that sometimes they are not omitted. Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994936Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:42:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994936michalsHi Avangi! What do you mean by 'idiomatic'? Are you saying that "Wow! She's too beautiful!" means 'not really beautiful'? I know for a fact that too means also 'very' in a formal register, for example: "Thank you, you are too kind."http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeThat/lpwkv/post.htmSat, 21 Nov 2009 13:19:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994912michalsHi, Heard somewhere someone say ' be that ' in the context it could mean something like 'for example' or 'like'. Is there such a usage possible? An example of that would be: - Always listen to peolpe who are older than you, be that your daddy, your mum, or the president. Couldn't find it in a dictionary but it may be that I don't know how to find it.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994794Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:25:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994794mrpernicketyThank you, Avangi, for the help and for going to the trouble of reposting again after you got oopsed. That oops thing is really frustrating and off puting! There otta be a law against it! Thanks, John, for chiming in on the subject, I appreciate your help!http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994784Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:16:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994784john clasetI'm a native American speaker, and many people would find that saying quite odd. There is a saying that is similar though. Here's how I would say it. 1. I passed my driving test because I prepared all too well. Luck has nothing to do with it. 2. They are always asking me how studious a student should be to prepare for the finals, and I shrug my shoulders everytime because in my book studiousness has nothing to do with it.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994783Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:15:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994783avangi1. I passed my driving test because I prepared all too well. Luck doesn't enter into it . 2. They are always asking me how studious a student should be to prepare for the finals, and I shrug my shoulders every time because in my book studiousness doesn't enter into it. "All too well" should have an element of dread, or ominousness: When my father told me to take down my pants, I knew all too well what was coming. ". . . how studious a student should be to prepare for" is clearly understood, but not idiomatic to my ear. I'd say: ". . . how studious a student should be in preparing for etc." ". . . how well prepared a student should be to take the finals." People for whom...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994781Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:07:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994781avangiDamn! You're too quick for me. I just did, but I got Oooopsed. When will I learn?http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994779Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:03:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994779mrpernicketyThanks, Avangi ! there are other problems in your sentences. Could you point out the problems, please?http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htm#994765Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:54:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994765avangiYour use of the "bolded" phrase is perfectly good, but there are other problems in your sentences.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/lpwbb/post.htmSat, 21 Nov 2009 09:41:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994756mrpernicketyHi, Could you tell me if the following two sentences I just composed sound fine to a native speaker's ear? 1. I passed my driving test because I prepared all too well. Luck doesn't enter into it . 2. They are always asking me how studious a student should be to prepare for the finals, and I shrug my shoulders every time because in my book studiousness doesn't enter into it. Thanks !http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfRatherAndInsteadOf/lpzwr/post.htm#994022Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994022cliveHi, This is a bit confusing. Let me give an example to make it clear. # He saw it as a blessing rather than as a curse. # It appeared to her as an image instead of as a thought. # It was about X rather than / instead of about Y. # It was in your mind rather than/instead of in your body. From the bolded text, you can see there's repetition of as, about, in. Is that necessary? The repeated words are often omitted, as shown. Are there other ways to write it with rather/instead of? # Rather than as a curse,he saw it as a blessing. # He saw it as a blessing and not (as) a curse. # He saw it not as a curse but as a blessing. Best wishes, Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ToExtentTeachersUnderstanding-ConceptsTheoriesGrammarSchools/lpvnb/post.htm#993982Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993982philipYou may not be aware that in this forum we are prepared to answer specific questions about grammar, usage, etc. in English. Our job is not to write an opinion piece on questions like the one you have posted. If you are asking about the correctness of the question itself, it is fine.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectMySentencePlease/lpvpc/post.htm#993878Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:13:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993878yankeeHi Sanaz, and welcome! I would like to help you with your sentence, but I'm not sure what it means. Maybe something like this? - Throughout the years, the television and the freezer have had the most usage, 98 and 80 percent respectively. (I'm not sure what you mean about the vacuum cleaner and the refrigerator.) H ello everyone, I just joined to this group I don't know if I should write my question here or not! B ut pl e ase correct my sentence . " THE MOST USAGE WAS DEVOTED TO TELEVISION AND FREZZER RESPECTIVELY, 98 AND 80 PERSENT THROUGH OUT THE YEARS BEFORE VACUM CLEANER HAS MORE UTILIZATION OF REFREGERATOR" thanks in ad v a nc e,http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectMySentencePlease/lpvpc/post.htmFri, 20 Nov 2009 12:24:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993839sunnyshinyhello everyone, i just joined to this group i don't know if i should write my question here or not! but plase correct my sentence " THE MOST USAGE WAS DEVOTED TO TELEVISION AND FREZZER RESPECTIVELY, 98 AND 80 PERSENT THROUGH OUT THE YEARS BEFORE VACUM CLEANER HAS MORE UTILIZATION OF REFREGERATOR" thanks in adnave, sanazhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ConfusionInTheUsage/lpdxz/post.htm#993602Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:23:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993602dimsumexpressAnyone, anybody, any person are all possible usages, not any people , at least nothing comes to mind at this minute.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOrWhoWithInfinitive/lpbzh/post.htm#993517Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:34:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993517avangiThanks for elaborating on your position, CB. Your understanding of formal grammar is clearly better integrated than mine. When a usage is idiomatic, I can usually trust my "instincts" in matters of objects; but these particular forms seem to defy common sense. I hope that since I began by saying I'm on the fence, you don't consider me one who thinks only his view is correct. - A.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MostlyQuestionsArticleUsage/lxqhq/post.htm#993415Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:11:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993415mister micawberYes, of course you have. You can probably find milllions via Google Search. Your sentence remains odd without 'the', however, since the source/situation of the jingling is specificed.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOrWhoWithInfinitive/lpbzh/post.htm#993230Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:23:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993230cool breezeI know where to go. (same sentence - no case conflict) I'm as comfortable saying that "where" is what I know and "to go" answers the question; as I am to say that "to go" is what I know and "where" modifies it. "To go" isn't a transitive verb. Why does it have to have an object anyway? Why is "where" such a great direct object? Have an Olvi, Avangi! I have noticed over the years that the grammar I am familiar with sometimes differs from what is used elsewhere or at least in the Anglo-Saxon world. In this particular case our opinions differ with regard to what is an object and what isn't. I'm not saying that I'm right and everybody else is wrong but...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AllowOrAllows/2/lxphb/Post.htm#992779Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:41:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992779yoong liatThe police are looking for a fair-haired man in his twenties. (NOT The police is looking ... ) Practical English Usage (Michael Swan)http://www.englishforums.com/English/MostlyQuestionsArticleUsage/lxqhq/post.htm#992429Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:19:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992429mister micawberThese are correct: 1. It is to be used as a replacement for the old equipment currently in use. 2. With your generous support, (the) construction has begun on our long-awaited project. It is expected to be completed soon. 3. Hearing the jingling of bells has lifted my spirit up. 4. Twenty-seven feet of steel track. Thirty miles per hour. Our newest project has something for ... -- The ellipsis should be used only to indicate omitted words. Numbers at the beginning and end of sentences should be written out.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionUsedCellphone/lxpcl/post.htm#991922Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:991922avangiYes. (This seems like a new question.) But do these sentences have the same meaning ? I was under the impression that when we say " I called my mother from my cellphone" ,we mean that the call was made from my cellphone, and when we say " I called my mother on her cellphone ",we mean that the call was received on her cellphone. Do the prepositions "on" and "from" have different usages in this context ? You haven't yet quoted "I called my mother from her cell phone." This is the only one that requires special circumstances. She left her cell phone at your house. When she got home, you called her on/from her cell phone, placing the call to her residence land line. It is not really...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionUsedCellphone/lxpcl/post.htm#991916Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:05:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:991916debpriya deBut do these sentences have the same meaning ? I was under the impression that when we say " I called my mother from my cellphone" ,we mean that the call was made from my cellphone, and when we say " I called my mother on her cellphone ",we mean that the call was received on her cellphone. Do the prepositions "on" and "from" have different usages in this context ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/lxxmm/post.htm#991787Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:43:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:991787gleb_chebrikoffHello, Mariott, 1. I hope this will make you happy and will not be forgotten.- correct; no comma before and when the subject of the second clause is ellipted, as shown by the materials in the Survey of English Usage. 2. I hope this will make you happy, and will not be forgotten.- correct, but less preferable because of the comma (in fact, much rarer than #1) 3. I hope this will make you happy and not be forgotten.- incorrect, the first verb phrase is positive, while the second one is negative; therefore, will should not be ellipted 4. I hope this will make you happy, and not be forgotten.- incorrect, comma + will Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff