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

Motivation letter for a Ph.D.

djoe — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:45:29 GMT

Hi everyone,

I have written a draft for a motivation letter, which i'll include in a Ph.D. application.

Because, at the moment, I don't have acces to someone from whom I can get feed back, I'll post it here, and hopefuly someone will be able to read it and comment.

Thank you in advance to whom might read it.

To whom it may concern,

Application for the *** Ph.D. Program

The present letter will explain the reasons why I'm applying to a Ph.D.
degree.

By enrolling on the undergraduate course on Systems and Informatics
Engineering at the *** University, I came in contact with different
paradigms, technics and methodologies for software development.

In the early years of my studies at the university I was a student of
Professor *** which introduced
me to the basis of Formal Methods for software development and verification.

Soon I discovered the interest for Formal Methods, and
got involved in the Grand Challenge in Computer Science initiative.
This experience gave me a taste of what research in Formal Methods is.

Before terminating the under-graduation I entered another challenge like
project, forming a team of students like my self for the ***
contest, under the category of Software Design.
We made it through to the *** finals with a project for a
distributed environment where mobile devices could be used to increment the
contents already available on social data sources like Wikipedia, and others.

Enrolling in the MSc on Informatics at *** was a natural choice in order to
keep working with, and in, Formal Methods,
allowing me to continue the research in the context of the Grand Challenge.
My thesis subject is ***, which includes
building formal models of a informal specification and it's correction
verification.

Under Professor ***'s supervision I have done research on the
possibility to use different tools for different aspects of the formal
development and verification of software.
Which lead to a paper submitted and, presented by me, on the ***
Workshop at the *** symposium.

The contact with researchers from all over the world made me want to keep
doing research on Formal Methods, and push the Grand Challenge initiative
further with my contribution.

In 2007 I was invited to join a development team, as a junior developer, to
design and build an information system for the "*** *** ***" (***).
From November/2007 to May/2008 I worked at the *** facilities together with
domain experts to design and build the software system, while maintaining the
research related with my MSc studies at the university.

I believe that through Formal Methods one can achieve true engineering
concepts for software correction by construction, and that, due to the
overwhelming expansion of software applications, not only critical systems
should be proven safe and correct.

Nowadays software is embedded in almost every system we use, and in most
cases,
the producers os these artifacts not only don't provide warranty, but will
relieve themselves from any obligation with disclaimer notices.

Formalizing software development, as other engineering driven development
communities have done in the past, will give it scientific grounds to hold on,
and probably increase its quality.

Kind Regards,

***

Very difficult question (QUOTATION)

wholegrain — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:56:52 GMT

FULL EXTRACT:

Meditation over kindness received seemed to have softened him something, too, it may be, beyond what might, perhaps, have been looked for from one whose unwonted self-respect in the hour of need, and in the act of being aided, might have appeared to some not wholly unlike pride out of place; and pride, in any place, is seldom very feeling. But the truth, perhaps, is, that those who are least touched with that vice, besides being not unsusceptible to goodness, are sometimes the ones whom a ruling sense of propriety makes appear cold, if not thankless, under a favor. For, at such a time, to be full of warm, earnest words, and heart-felt protestations, is to create a scene; and well-bred people dislike few things more than that; which would seem to look as if the world did not relish earnestness; but, not so; because the world, being earnest itself, likes an earnest scene, and an earnest man, very well, but only in their place--the stage. See what sad work they make of it, who, ignorant of this, flame out in Irish enthusiasm and with Irish sincerity, to a benefactor, who, if a man of sense and respectability, as well as kindliness, can but be more or less annoyed by it; and, if of a nervously fastidious nature, as some are, may be led to think almost as much less favorably of the beneficiary paining him by his gratitude, as if he had been guilty of its contrary, instead only of an indiscretion. But, beneficiaries who know better, though they may feel as much, if not more, neither inflict such pain, nor are inclined to run any risk of so doing. And these, being wise, are the majority. By which one sees how inconsiderate those persons are, who, from the absence of its officious manifestations in the world, complain that there is not much gratitude extant; when the truth is, that there is as much of it as there is of modesty; but, both being for the most part votarists of the shade, for the most part keep out of sight.

http://www.online-literature.com/melville/confidence-man/5/

THE CONFIDENCE MAN - HERMAN MELVILLE
==

I don't understand the construction of this extract:

See what sad work they make of it, who, ignorant of this, flame out in Irish enthusiasm and with Irish sincerity, to a benefactor, who, if a man of sense and respectability, as well as kindliness, can but be more or less annoyed by it; and, if of a nervously fastidious nature, as some are, may be led to think almost as much less favorably of the beneficiary paining him by his gratitude, as if he had been guilty of its contrary, instead only of an indiscretion.

Does the author mean "If they see what sad work(...)"

Also can you say "(...) to a benefactor, who, if a man(...)

instead of "(...) to a benefactor, the benefactor if he was a man(...)

Are these two constructions are equivalents, "who" standing for benefactor, even if it sounds awkward?

Re: had have had

Goodman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:16:09 GMT

Anon,

Ok, I see you are a brave soul, making such a bold statement hiding behind an empty entity âAnonymousâ calling people âignorantâ. Well, I tell you what, I think I have a couple of shots left in the barrel and Iâd like you to have it.

First, I am not sure what credential you have giving you the authority to call people âignorantâ.

Secondly, my impression is, so far, every posted thread is no more than a personal interpretation (or mis-interpretation) of the grammar rules on the subjunctive mood.

This is what CJ said and I agreed. Is there a problem with that!

If your brain would have generated the correct pulses, you may not have said the word âignorantâ.

If you would have posted the query â If would have had â on Google, you would have found many people whom you believe are ignorant fools.

I hope I don't have to relaod..

CalifJim wrote:

The 'd is for would, not for had.

If I would have had the money, I would have bought it. â What is wrong with this? This is a perfectly formed subjunctive mood !!

The contracted form is usually said If I'd've had the money, (now this I havenât seenâ.... Many people get a little confused and write "had" instead of "would" and/or "of" instead of "have", giving all sorts of strange combinations in written form: if I had of had, if I would of had, if I had have had, etc.

The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard. The recommended form is "If I had had" or, contracted, "If I'd had".

CJ

Then I said:

I've to completely agree with CJ.

"Had have had" does look and sound odd and the contraction of "I would" could be mistaken with "I had" before both could be

written as "I'd.."

Re: hardly - and, nor

Hoa Thai — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:39:24 GMT

Yankee wrote:
Hoa Thai wrote:
âI donât read nor writeâ. Okay
âI donât go to the bank nor / or the market anymoreâ Okay.
âI hardly go to the bank nor the market anymoreâ. Hmmm!
Hi Hoa Thai
Oddly enough, I'd have rejected 'nor' in all three sentences. To me, the "not, nor" combination is usually used this way:
âI donât read. Nor do I writeâ.
âI don't go to the bank anymore. Nor (do I go to) the market.â

In the third sentence, you should stick with 'or':
âI hardly go to the bank or the market anymoreâ.

Hi Amy,

I am with you. I have mostly used constructions similar to yours. For example, âI am not, nor have I ever been, â¦â

However, I wonder if those sentences that I marked âOkayâ are ungrammatical or archaic. I found a few articles archived by The New York Times that support the ânot, norâ pair, as in âThe ignorant white men, who cannot read nor write, who never owned a slave, â¦â

Interestingly enough, from one of the recent articles published by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics titled âExamining the notion of literacy in a rapidly changing world,â I saw this opening statement:

âAt the outset of the 21st century, there are still an estimated 880 million adults who cannot read nor write in the world; two-thirds of whom are women.â

In addition to those, I was taught that the ânot, norâ pair could be used to specially emphasize the word after nor, as in âHe will not withdraw nor reduce his demands.â I found this teaching from my late teacher is still being used. Here are a few examples:

"So, while we will not withdraw or reduce any of our military efforts in Irag ...."
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=16955

ââ¦people should not withdraw nor make âtactical votesâ for that reason...â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Radiant

Please comment.

Re: With who? With whom? Or who (...) with?

Grammar Geek — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:56:09 GMT

Hi again,

You can use the original one. People do use "who" in that situation all the time. In the most proper sense, it should be "whom" but few people use the "whom" without the "with" coming RIGHT before it, and will find it to sound overly formal if you DO use the "whom."

But by just dropping the who/whom altogether, you avoid both what is technically a grammatical mistake and what sounds unnaturally formal.

If you felt compelled to use either who or whom, I'd use "who," despite being technically incorrect, because it's what's said 99% of the time in the U.S. in that type of construction.

Re: I'm going to marry him whatever they say!

Yankee — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:38:21 GMT

Milky wrote:
CalifJim wrote:
A native tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. The native must have misunderstood the question. Does it No., and if it does, why? And is it widespread? No.

"gonna" has to be followed by a verb. London isn't a verb!

I'm gonna London is totally impossible!

CJ

I don't think the native American English speaker misunderstood Molly's question: I do. Or else he/she wasn't being very precise with variations in pronunciation. Or maybe he/she isn't actually a native speaker of American English.

This is his answer to her above question:

<<What do you mean "only occurs"? If you use it, and it's understood by your interlocutor (um, that's the person to whom you are speaking), and you get a response from it, then it occurs, regardless of what your textbooks say.

The compilers of your textbook never went out into the real world, to a ticket clerk, and said "I'm gonna Boston, and I wanna ticket."

I tried it, and Norman-the-clerk smiled, and sold me a ticket to Boston. So he understood and accepted what I had said. Therefore, the construction occurs.>>

http://forums.lydbury.co.uk/grammar/viewtopic.php?t=5011&start=0

I'd say that "I'm going to Boston" might be pronounced like this: "I'm goin a Boston".
To me there is a world of difference between that and "I'm gonna Boston".
I agree with CJ.

Re: I'm going to marry him whatever they say!

milky — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:21:59 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
A native tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. The native must have misunderstood the question. Does it No., and if it does, why? And is it widespread? No.

"gonna" has to be followed by a verb. London isn't a verb!

I'm gonna London is totally impossible!

CJ

I don't think the native American English speaker misunderstood Molly's question:

This is his answer to her above question:

<<What do you mean "only occurs"? If you use it, and it's understood by your interlocutor (um, that's the person to whom you are speaking), and you get a response from it, then it occurs, regardless of what your textbooks say.

The compilers of your textbook never went out into the real world, to a ticket clerk, and said "I'm gonna Boston, and I wanna ticket."

I tried it, and Norman-the-clerk smiled, and sold me a ticket to Boston. So he understood and accepted what I had said. Therefore, the construction occurs.>>

http://forums.lydbury.co.uk/grammar/viewtopic.php?t=5011&start=0

Re: conjunction

Mister Micawber — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:09:51 GMT

The arrangement was more a formality than a genuine partnership of two nations

This and your other examples are all varieties of the 'more...than' comparative structure. From Random House:

Usage note Whether 'than' is to be followed by the objective or subjective case of a pronoun is much discussed in usage guides. When, as a conjunction, 'than' introduces a subordinate clause, the case of any pronouns following 'than' is determined by their function in that clause: 'He is younger than I am.' 'I like her better than I like him.' When 'than' is followed only by a pronoun or pronouns, with no verb expressed, the usual advice for determining the case is to form a clause mentally after 'than' to see whether the pronoun would be a subject or an object. Thus, the sentences He was more upset than I and She gave him more sympathy than I are to be understood, respectively, as He was more upset than I was and She gave him more sympathy than I gave him. In the second sentence, the use of the objective case after 'than' (She gave him more sympathy than me) would produce a different meaning (She gave him more sympathy than she gave me). This method of determining the case of pronouns after 'than' is generally employed in formal speech and writing.
'Than' occurs as a preposition in the old and well-established construction 'than whom': 'a musician than whom none is more expressive'. In informal, especially uneducated, speech and writing, 'than' is usually treated as a preposition and followed by the objective case of the pronoun: 'He is younger than me.' 'She plays better poker than him, but you play even better than her.'

Your inserted 'of' is widely used in informal language, but should be omitted in careful writing.

Re: Can I say "Wood is not stronger than steel."?

Hoa Thai — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:31:02 GMT

Dear all,

My two-cent worth:

1) as â¦ as

- as sweet as = equally sweet. Marry is as sweet as Ann (the two are equally sweet).
- not as sweet as = not equally sweet. Marry is not as sweet as Ann (they are not equally sweet).

Logically, the second sentence does not say who is sweeter than whom. However, seeing âMarry is mean; she is not as sweet as Ann,â people know what it means. In other words, if X â Y, X < > Y; thus, one needs more information to decipher the exact meaning of NOT EQUAL operator. Therefore, âMarry is not as sweet as Ann; Marry is sweeterâ is clearer; but of course that would be less natural than âAnn is sweeter than Marry.â

That being said, we often hear ânot as â¦ asâ construction without further clarification. The reason is that the speaker and the listener both share the supportive implication. For instances:

- known fact: X won a basketball game against Y â âY is not as good as Xâ = âX is better than Yâ.

2) not only â¦ but also

This correlative conjunction means the same as besides or in addition to. Therefore, saying not only sweet but also sweeter is semantically extraneous and unnatural (albeit, grammatically correct). Note that âleaving out the also from this construction tends to intensify the first part of the construction rather than supplement it: She is not only smart but brilliant. He not only wanted the diamond but wanted it desperately.â â Style: Parallelism. Passives, Redundancy, and Wordiness; The American HeritageÂ® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

How about leaving out the 'but' or âbut alsoâ completely? My advice to ESL learners is PLEASE DO NOT.

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: Possession

khoff — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:47:02 GMT

As Jim said, "Although there are lots of exceptions, the main use of the possessive construction ('s) is with a person, that is, with entities to whom things can belong."

Your teacher might not think that dogs can possess things, but dogs think otherwise -- I hope your teacher never tries to take away a dog's bone.

Americans at least, tend to think of their pets as members of the family, and so, especially when referring to a specific animal, using the 's form would not seem strange at all. I might go to the store to buy "a dog bed" but when my own dog is sleeping in it I would call it "the dog's bed." Someone might buy "cat food," but they might also serve it to the cat up on a table so that the dog would not eat "the cat's food."

In fact, I never heard of the "rule" that the 's form could only be used for people until I started reading this forum -- it's certainly not something most native speakers are taught. I would be more likely to say "the table leg" or "the leg of the table," but if I heard someone say "the table's leg" I would not think "that's wrong!" And even if you maintain that only someone/something that can possess things can take the 's, I see nothing at all wrong with using it for animals. Of course, I'm not your teacher, so I can't tell you what to write in class; I'm just telling you how I use it as a native speaker.