Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Log in' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Log in'

Re: Inversions in reported speech

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:21:57 GMT

OK. Now I understand what you mean.

These are in free variation when you are writing dialog in a narrative. You can invert some and leave others uninverted, just for variety. In either case, leave the adverbs at the end.

"...." said Robert with a smile.

"...." Robert said with a smile.

"...." shouted Lucy impatiently.

"..." Lucy shouted impatiently.

Would

Anonymous — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:32:57 GMT

This is Rotter again. I don't know why I can't log in to the forum. This has been a problem for me for a while.

1.I would weigh 75-80 kilos if I start eating chocalates, candies, etc. [ At the moment I weigh 60-62 kilos.]

I have learnt from Marius to use the auxiliary verb 'would' in hypothetical sentences.

The first sentence indicates a hypothetical situation, in my book.

Is it correct? Does it indicate hypothetical situation?

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

Suggestions for Improving Grammar on Site

Grammarfixerupper — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:47:48 GMT

Hello:

I am new to the site (was led here by a search engine) and am surprised to see a number of grammatical errors in and around the site in general. I haven't looked everywhere, but below you will find a list of the ones that I noticed right off the bat:

The site mistakenly uses, in many places (including the welcome e-mail), "login" and "logout" as verbs; however, the verb is two words: "log in" or "log out." The noun/adjective can be one word, but never can the verb. In other words, it would be correct to say that "I log in at the login page." Many sites are guilty of this offense, including those of major corporations. The real test is to put the verb in the past tense. You wouldn't say that "She loginned yesterday" (one word). Rather, you would say that "She logged in yesterday" (two words). Other common misuses (though not necessarily seen on this site) include pickup, checkout, and rollover.
The paragraph on the main page needs some commas (which I've added between asterisks):

According to Alexa, weâre now the worldâs busiest EFL forum*,* with up to 30,000 visits each day - 'Kudos' to our amazing team!
Due to massive demand*,* LIVE chat is here. Please read the guidelines, terms and conditions before posting. PLEASE DO NOT POST PERSONAL CONTACT ADDRESSES. Register here; we will never send you spam!

Finally, there is a little phrase at the top right-hand corner when one is logged in. It says, "Welcome back XYZ" (where XYZ is the username). Because someone is being addressed in this phrase, there should be a comma after "back."

Thank you for your attention, and keep up the great work!

Warm regards,

Andy

Re: This sentence is a real challenge

Marius Hancu — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:45:43 GMT

Log-in Control might be related to getting the logs inside the manufacturing facility for processing

I don't think it's this one which works on the Web and the Internet:
----------
log on

Variant(s):also log in

Function:intransitive verb

: to establish communication and initiate interaction with a time-shared computer or network
- log-on \ | \ also log-in \ | \ noun

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

Re: TOEIC question

Inchoateknowledge — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:28:51 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
We have at some time to do something.
This is what I call split infinitive.

Well, unfortunately, it's not what everyone else calls a split infinitive!

We have to at some time do something would create a split infinitive.
None of this discussion has anything to do with split infinitives. (Sorry to disappoint you!)

The sentence doesn't work because before the end of the month is not an amount of time. Strictly speaking, until the end of the month isn't an amount of time either, but it implies an amount of time indirectly, the way that before cannot. (It implies the amount of time encompassed by 'from now until the end of the month')

Compare with the analog in space.
We have plenty of room in the kitchen to set up our science experiment.
Fine. plenty of room in the kitchen describes an amount of space.

*We have in front of the TV to set up our experiment.
Wrong. in front of the TV is a position in space, not an amount of space.

(In none of these, whether the time examples or the space examples, should you think of the have as the have to of obligation. It is the have of possession.)

CJ

Yes, indeed, it is not a split inf.

But the sentence is correct, IMO

We have to do something = correct

We have an adverb phrase we want to integrate into the above sentence:

before the end of the month = when

Before means at or during a time earlier than (the the end of this month)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=6722&dict=CALD

So, our problem now has been narrowed down to whether we can insert the phrase in the sentence, in the above place.

We have to raise the necessary capital (before the end of the month) = at a time before the end of the month = correct sentence

We have (before the end of the month) to raise the necessary capital = by the same token, I think it is correct.

Re: Poem for Aaron

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:55:49 GMT

You can start by reading THIS and THIS and THIS.

Here also are a few quotes from online poetry or literary reviews:

"The sole reservation I find myself harbouring with Alan Seeger's sonnets (especially the first series) is this: Seeger, who is after all a Twentieth Century poet, too often resorts to reliance on anachronistic language, and especially on the archaic pronouns, "thee" and "thou" to embellish his work, with the result that it sometimes sounds a little affected and quaint. Allow me a few examples:

"Like as a dryad,...", and "Come thou no less...." (Sonnet XII),
"That oft as Fortune from ten thousand shows..." (Sonnet XIV),
"Come unto me, Love beckoned them, for lo!" (Sonnet XV)
"Have made my asking less importunate," (Other Sonnets, Sonnet IV)
and finally,
"'... 'tis not so easy near." (Other Sonnets, Sonnet IX)

Such poetic phrasing, however melodious, a modern reader might find ever so slightly mars the otherwise pristine quality of Alan Seeger's devotionals to his Renaissance forbears. These anachronisms are all the more regrettable for their being inconsistent with his mainstream style, where he rather more scrupulously avoids using archaic language. Oddly, while the archaic pronominals "thee" and "thou" crop up fairly often in his first series of sonnets, he seems to have realized that such verbiage was, as it were, "a little off" when he came to compose his later second series, "Other Sonnets". In these, the archaic pronouns are gone. The second series of sonnets therefore sound more familiar and more natural to the modern reader's ear."

"[Allan Ginsberg] studied poetry under William Carlos Williams. who was then in the middle of writing his epic poem Paterson about his home town. Ginsberg, after attending a reading by Williams, sent the older poet several of his poems and wrote an introductory letter. Most of these early poems were rhymed and metered and included archaic pronouns like "Thee." Williams hated the poems. He told Ginsberg later, "In this mode perfection is basic, and these poems are not perfect."

"Other critics have commented on Hemingway's use of the archaic pronouns "thee" and "thou" and "thy" in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Carlos Baker describes this as "intentionally heightened language", intended to reproduce the tone of an Elizabethan epic. For Azevedo, the pronouns suggest "an old-fashioned poetic usage or the archaic diction of the King James Bible."

" My greatest single disappointment with Morgan's work is his affinity for Elizabethan English. I find the archaic pronouns, verb forms, and sentence constructions both annoying and distracting. It isn't as though he tries to hide this affinity though. He says plainly in the introduction that he is "thoroughly steeped in the grandeur" of the seventeenth century. His reliance on the King James Version of the Bible is obvious: I would have wished for more accessible language to complement his insistence on familiar music."

Googling the archaic pronouns individually or collectively, however, produces mostly heated discussions on the use of them in the King James version of the Bible. There and in Shakespeare are the only places that thee, thou, thy and thine reside comfortably and timelessly. Just as we no longer go about writing--

O lord, oure lord, thy name how merveillous
Is in this large world ysprad, quod she;
For noght oonly thy laude precious
Parfourned is by men of dignitee,
But by the mouth of children thy bountee
Parfourned is, for on the brest soukynge
Somtyme shewen they thyn heriynge.

-- we no longer go about using the archaic pronouns for any but the most specific of artistic purposes-- and that does not include love lyrics.

(Edit: After compiling all of the above, I forgot to log in!-- MM)

Re: Please rate & comment on my recommendation letter.

Kngpen — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:38:56 GMT

I am in a professional writing class this semester and have already received some valuable tips which I shed to you. Do not use to "whom it may concern." Do some research and find something more specific. Do not use passive verbs (am, was, is, are, have, be,). Do not use no, not, or anything negative (neither, nor, etc.). Where you state, "I have no doubt that he will succeed in all his endeavors." Possibly rephrase this to get rid of the negative "no" to something like, "His determination and hard work warrant his success and profitability in all future endeavors."

I posted this anonymously (I forgot to log in). Should be showing up below, however, you have it now instead .

Re: IN FRONT OF/IN BEFORE OF

rishonly — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:08:18 GMT

That's it!. I guess your answer unties the knot, Pieanne. Now, I understand the right usage is <<verb + before >>, in the given context.

Please sign in/check in/log in/ before 8.00am. Thanks again Pieanne and CalifJim.

Re: Collective nouns

Jussive — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:30:56 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

(Oops! Didn't take time to log in-- MM)

Well, I am now deep in the bowels of Quirk, et al, Jussive-- and I think there may be some--ahem!-- lack of clarity among everyone, including the texts, between group nouns and collective nouns, among other things. Group nouns (according to the book in my lap at the moment) are those you mention as taking an item of: a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, etc-- where herd (not cattle) is the group noun. Here, they list family and committee, for instance, among the group nouns referring to people, with the comment that there is often a choice whether to use a singular or plural verb, based on notional concord-- i.e. what the speaker is thinking.

Meanwhile, in another section (5.78, to be precise), they are comparing unmarked plural nouns-- people (sing. person), police (sing. policeman/officer), cattle (sing. cow?) with collective nouns, which 'differ from other nouns in taking as pronoun referents either singular it or plural they without change of number in the noun'. In other words, they are not uncountable, but the singular form can be in concord with a singular and/or a plural verb, while the plural form acts normally:

The committee has met and it has rejected the proposal.
The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal.
The committees have met and they have rejected the proposal.

Incidentally, to hark back to the original question, Quirk lists examples of 'collective proper names': Parliament, the Vatican, the United States.

That's as far as I am prepared to carry the research tonight-- over to you!

MM

Ok, maybe we can get somewhere near the bottom of this.

Lets get something straight first: unmarked plural = irregular plural â right?

We are in agreement that âchildâ has an irregular plural in âchildrenâ. Incidentally, I canât see how the singular of âcattleâ can be âcowâ as it refers to any ruminant animal. Is it that âcowâ shares a plural with âbuffaloâ? Maybe one word can be the plural for several nouns. Hmm

Anyway, I still cannot see how âpoliceâ can be an unmarked plural. I have now checked my Oxford English Grammar book and it classes police as a noun that is always in the plural, like 'arms' (weapons) or 'earnings'. These are nouns that donât have singular forms. I guess the police (collectively) is more than just the plural of âpolicemanâ. Besides, wouldnât that be âpolicemenâ? As far as Iâm aware, this is why âpoliceâ is listed under one type of collective noun, even though such words donât apply to the âcollective nounâ test you proposed, i.e. whether the noun can be represented by a plural or singular pronoun. I think such a test would distinguish a group noun, perhaps.

Words such as âluggageâ or âclothingâ donât pass such a test either:

âThe luggage is here. It has arrived.â

âThe luggage is here. They have arrived.â (Obviously, this is wrong.)

Such words are always singular, yet, identify a collection of things, and, therefore, they are yet another type of collective noun.

So we have three types. The three have different properties as I have shown. None of them are simply the plural of singular nouns and they all represent a collection of things or people and thus are 'collective nouns'.

Ok over to you, my friend.

<edited text size>

Re: Collective nouns

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:53:47 GMT

(Oops! Didn't take time to log in-- MM)

Well, I am now deep in the bowels of Quirk, et al, Jussive-- and I think there may be some--ahem!-- lack of clarity among everyone, including the texts, between group nouns and collective nouns, among other things. Group nouns (according to the book in my lap at the moment) are those you mention as taking an item of: a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, etc-- where herd (not cattle) is the group noun. Here, they list family and committee, for instance, among the group nouns referring to people, with the comment that there is often a choice whether to use a singular or plural verb, based on notional concord-- i.e. what the speaker is thinking.

Meanwhile, in another section (5.78, to be precise), they are comparing unmarked plural nouns-- people (sing. person), police (sing. policeman/officer), cattle (sing. cow?) with collective nouns, which 'differ from other nouns in taking as pronoun referents either singular it or plural they without change of number in the noun'. In other words, they are not uncountable, but the singular form can be in concord with a singular and/or a plural verb, while the plural form acts normally:

The committee has met and it has rejected the proposal.
The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal.
The committees have met and they have rejected the proposal.

Incidentally, to hark back to the original question, Quirk lists examples of 'collective proper names': Parliament, the Vatican, the United States.

That's as far as I am prepared to carry the research tonight-- over to you!

MM