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

Re: Rumor has it

Marius Hancu — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:46:24 GMT

> First question, Is 'Rumor has it' an idiom, therefore "Rumors have it" is incorrect?

Yes.

>I find "the three children that his brother and his ex share." confusing.

Perfectly clear to me.

Because he's going to marry the woman who was the wife of his own brother, she convinced him to fight over the custody of the three children that she has procreated with his brother, because they are hers too. She is not interested in the other two, to whom she is not a birth mother.

Rumor has it

New2grammar — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:05:45 GMT

[Rumor has/Rumors have] it that Mike is going to marry his brother's ex-wife and fight for custody of the three children that his brother and his ex share.

First question, Is 'Rumor has it' an idiom, therefore "Rumors have it" is incorrect?

I find "the three children that his brother and his ex share." confusing. Could you please rephase it? Note that the brother has five kids, of whom 3 are from his marriage to his ex. Mike and his future wife are only interested in the three kids.

Thanks

colloquial language or vulgar?!

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:35:02 GMT

hi,

today i wrote a letter (to an old aquaintance, whom i don't know very good), in which i wanted to describe a situation, where someone laughed VERY intensely - and because my english is kinda bad, i googled for a funny idiom. i found & used 'he laughed his ass off', which was described as 'slang-idiom'. after i sent the letter i suddenly found another description, saying that this is not colloquial or slang, but vulgar! this shocked me a lot, because i wanted to be funny, and the use of slang-language is really ok for me - but i did NOT AT ALL want to be vulgar! so i feel very embarrased now.. can you ease my sorrow - or NOT?

thanks a lot for your help!

an abashed girl

colloquial language or vulgar?

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:32:31 GMT

hi,

thanks a lot for your help!

an abashed girl

Re: out of reach of/for

Avangi — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:33:23 GMT

New2grammar wrote:

What's the difference between 'out of reach of' and 'out of reach for'?

For example,

Keep all sharp object out of reach of children.

The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for minimum wage earners.

Thanks in advance!

Hi N2g,

(just gessing) The first one seems to be more literal - out of [the] reach of children (physical reach) Whose reach?

In the second one the use is more figurative. "Out of reach" becomes an expression or an idiom. It describes the condition. It's too expensive. For whom?

Regards, - A.

Re: My last duchess

Feebs11 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:33:52 GMT

-First I want to describe the situation (who is speaking to whom, that the Duke is looking for a new wife, that he killed his last one)

-than I want mention that we don't just read this in our text but have to read it between the lines.

-I would say that we have to read between the lines because the poet uses all kinds of irony (verbal irony, structural irony,....)

-this irony shows the tone of the poem

-then my thesis statement: something like:
through various kinds of irony we can ~~read between the lines~~infer that the duke killed his last duchess and we can interpret him telling this on purpose as a warning towards his future wife.

Looks as though you are going in the right direction. Fine here to use idioms such as "read between the lines", but don't use them too often in your essay.

Post the essay when you have written it for more comments!

Re: who for?

Kooyeen — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:18:47 GMT

Thank you again Jim.
Yes, "whom" should be avoided in normal conversation...
It's strange, GG said that "For who?" sounded more natural to her than "Who for?", but you would prefer "Who for?"...
Now I really don't know what to say!

Should I use both forms alternatively? With "what", it sounds better when "what" is at the end ("with what", "for what", etc.), apart from the idiom "What for?". But in all the other cases, I don't know what to do. I never heard these short questions before, so I don't know what native speakers actually use.
Thanks again

Re: Which way would you sway?

MrPedantic — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:08:15 GMT

Milky wrote:

<I would be interested to see quotations from the early English grammarians that presented spoken English as somehow inferior, or that demonstrated an imposition of inappropriate rules from Latin. >

Do you doubt that was the case?

"Doubt" is too strong a word. I would be interested to see the quotations.

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

I would disagree that Classical Latin Grammar is "totally non-applicable" to the English language (or vice versa). It would be truer to say that many aspects of Latin grammar are non-applicable to English.

I would also disagree with the notion that the study of English grammar for any given person is bound to have been based on Latin grammar; though no doubt the statement is true for some people.

[Lowth] condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹).

Sounds sensible.

His most famous (or infamous) contribution to the study of grammar was his prescription that sentences ending with a prepositionâsuch as "what did you ask for?"âare inappropriate in formal writing.

Sounds doubtful. Though Lowth doesn't appear to mention Latin in his reasoning:

"This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

And he seems to limit his prescription to the "solemn and elevated Style", which is a relatively rare form of English.

Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

I would not agree with Lowth about Addison's sentence; but nothing here suggests that his justification lay in Latin grammar.

"Objective case" doesn't seem a particularly pernicious phrase; "whom" is undeniably an example; and what remains of the objective case in English "corresponds" in some of its functions to the accusative case in Latin.

I know that some popular sources repeat the notion that early English grammarians attempted to impose Latin grammar on English; but I've yet to see any primary evidence.

MrP

Re: To whom it May/Might concern.

Jackson6612 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:28:19 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
It's an idiom, that is, a fixed formula of words. Idioms cannot be changed without seeming wrong to native speakers.

Consider for example the idiom kicked the bucket, which means died. Even though another word for bucket is pail, we can't change this to kicked the pail without seeming quite ridiculous to anyone who hears us speaking this way!!! I'm sure you can find examples of this sort of thing in your own language.

CJ

CJ, for the time being forget that it's an idiom, then I think you will find the use of might more appropriate. Right?

In the last post Clive said:

''I would say that we rarely start a letter with those words.''

Why is he using would? Shouldn't he say:

''I will/shall say that we rarely start a letter with those words.''?

Re: To whom it May/Might concern.

CalifJim — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:06:42 GMT

It's an idiom, that is, a fixed formula of words. Idioms cannot be changed without seeming wrong to native speakers.

Consider for example the idiom kicked the bucket, which means died. Even though another word for bucket is pail, we can't change this to kicked the pail without seeming quite ridiculous to anyone who hears us speaking this way!!! I'm sure you can find examples of this sort of thing in your own language.

CJ