Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Logins' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Logins'

Re: English with Russian... Find a friend

beaverbeaver — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:26:47 GMT

hi guys! well i'm not russian, but i'm a fan of russia! although it's very cold there. btw, can i ask something about russian grammar? is it like english structure ? Subject+tobe/verb+adj/noun ..etc etc ?

if you don't find me here, go to my second community ok guys. I'm not promoting anything, i like both forums, i just don't have the time to login both at the same time, i'm always traveling and i login from airports while waiting for my plane, train stations, etc etc. only my first community is like a family, the members are limited there, a closer relationship you could say. but englishforums is bigger and i get some infos here. very nice to see people from different countries trying to learn the same language

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: Pucca's expressions - I understood it now

Kooyeen — Wed, 30 May 2007 18:35:30 GMT

Hi everyone, I'm back.
I just posted anonymously, damn login.

I said that I think it is the verb "understand" that is odd, not the structure... I don't know why. I still think "Ok, I got it now, thanks" is perfectly ok, instead.

Can't you think of other examples where "now" means "this time" and it is used with a past simple? For example, after having tried to jump over a wall many times, when you succeed: "Woohoo, I jumped it now, did you see that? I did it!". Or something like that...
Thanks

Re: adjective or adverbial

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:48:23 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

[pioussoul]:

Well, because you're pressed for time, I'd explain it concisely--a participial construction is actually reduced from a few different clauses, inclusive of an adjectival relative clause. There is no such term as a reduced relative clause.

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made/making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

All of them are all possible. Because you're in a hurry, I'll post this right now. Talk to you later.

Re: adjective or adverbial

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:08:22 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

Hi, anonymous, I'm glad to answer your question, but I'm not used to talking to someone without a name. By the way, do you have an alias?

Re: adjective or adverbial

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:50:24 GMT

Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

Re: adjective or adverbial

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:17:08 GMT

Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

how or what?

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:16:27 GMT

Hello, everybody.

One of my many doubts... :-(

Is there any rule I can follow in choosing "how" as an interrogative pronoun?

i.e. 1. How (or what?) do you say *** in English?

2. How (or what?) do you pronounce *** in English?

I learnt to say "What do you call ***...?" but it still sounds me strange (or strangely?? ), because in Italian the interrogative form with "how" can be answered by both nouns and adverbs.

ps. I'm not anonymus... where do I have to login??

Re: It's you who is/are answering me

Kooyeen — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:08:21 GMT

The above post is mine, I forgot to login, as always.

I found out something on the Net about this issue, and they disagree with each other:

It is you who are leaving ---- http://www.zianet.com/jkline/u3pnagr.htm

"it is you who is responsible for this" - not "are." ---- http://www.stage-door.org/stampact/traps.html

the "who" refers to the "you," so we want "have." ---- http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs3/grammarlogs467.htm

As you can see, they all say different things. But what I did then was this: again, I tryed to find what is more usual. I've checked a lot of websites, even song databases and American blogs. So:

It's you who/that is trying to understand.
It's you who/that needs an answer.
It's you who/that doesn't understand this at all.

But notice the plural verb here:

It's you guys who/that are trying to understand.
It's you learners who/that need an answer.
It's you who/that don't understand this at all. (plural you, you readers, you guys)

I believe the tenses used in those sentences are the most idiomatic and most accepted, even if they might be grammatically wrong.

If anyone has some different opinions or want to tell us what they use in everyday's speech, they are free to post in this thread.

Re: Should "yet" be romoved from this sentence?

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:46:40 GMT

Thank you for the above prompt answer, Clive.

I just couldn't login this website later yesterday perhaps because there were too much visitors.

Your answer is very helpful.

That was not the first time that I made such mistakes as for the first question. The word "blind" is too familiar to me as an adj. that I failed to take it as a verb. And I thought "dazzle" should be in the same part of speech as "blind", thus the unwise question No.1 generated.

And Iâve learned much from the second question's answer, too.

Thank you again.