http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aBagle%3fLawyer&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Bagle?Lawyer'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/HisBeingVsHimBeing/4/bgbdr/Post.htm#155758Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:42:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:155758bagle lawyerAgain: I was told that you should avoid the -ing form: "I was surprised that he came into the room." Just my $0.02.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HisBeingVsHimBeing/4/bgbdr/Post.htm#155757Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:40:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:155757bagle lawyerFrom what I have heard, using the gerund ist bad English anyway. Shouldn't you say: "Even though he is a role model for his family, he knows how to have fun." ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdvancedQuestionPastPresent-Perfect/bnjrh/post.htm#150119Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:17:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:150119bagle lawyerThanks! Could you perhaps even generalize and say, that whenever you cannot determine a specific point in time, when something happend (2 weeks ago, yesterday, last year, earlier today), you definitely don't usw the past tense? You then have to decide between present perfect and present perfect continuous ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdvancedQuestionPastPresent-Perfect/bnjrh/post.htmThu, 20 Oct 2005 22:40:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149998bagle lawyerCalifJim posted a long, informative response to a question about the use of the past and present perfect tense. The following paragraph is an excerpt from his posting: >> The present perfect, however, does not "singularize", "individuate" or "particularize" an action. With the present perfect, we don't even know exactly when the action happened! What is more important with the present perfect is that the action now has some felt effect on the present. When you say "I have written a letter", in a way you are pointing to that letter and saying, "And here it is. Here is the letter I have written" -- even though the pointing and saying may be only a mental pointing and saying! The important thing is having (hence the auxiliary...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Accent/bnwnv/post.htmThu, 20 Oct 2005 18:36:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149927bagle lawyerHi, I want to make a statement regarding foreign accents and then ask questions. (Let's not JUST talk about whether or not an accent is good or bad). I'm a native German speaker and have moved to the US a couple months ago, having previously dated an American girl for 1.5 years. It's very funny, some people tell me I don't have any accent at all. One girl once asked me if I was from Virigina after we had talked for 30 minutes. On other occassions, people immediately discovered I am foreign, and sometimes even attributed me to a German speaking country. Now, I generally agree with the analysis by most people on this board. 1) A foreign accent is, in principle, not bad. I was even told that American think of themselves as rather...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Punctuation/bnwmm/post.htmThu, 20 Oct 2005 17:39:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149918bagle lawyerLet's meet on Friday, at 7.30, in front of the John H. statue. 1) Do I need a comma between "Friday" and "7.30"? 2) Are you available ;-) Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveSToMrp/bnhgb/post.htm#149703Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:18:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149703bagle lawyerThanks, Sextus! I'm really wondering what could have possibly made you think I'm a native speaker ... No, I'm actually from Switzerland, i.e., I don't speak any language properly ;-) ... and my above sentence "could have possibly made" or "could possibly have made" raises another issue ....... :-(http://www.englishforums.com/English/PunctuationQuestion/bljmh/post.htm#149701Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:12:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149701bagle lawyerHi, I am a lawyer (who's not yet qualified), but I should mention that I am not a native speaker. You must not rely on any information given on this board and should definitely consult an attorney with respect to your legal issues. Generally, it would seem clear that (1) "except" only refers to the "change of the trustee". Otherwise, we would find a comma after "trustee" and that (2) "under this section" refers to the whole section (4). HOWEVER, if subsection (c) referred to the whole section (4), this would be contradictory to subsection (a). This is because subsection (c) would in this way relativize all of subsection (a), not only part of it. It would therefore not make sense, to consider "except" as qualifying only the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveSToMrp/bnhgb/post.htm#149666Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:33:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149666bagle lawyerGreat! Thanks a lot! The only open issue is why MrP implied that adding an "s" to a name but leaving out the apostrophe would be ok as in .... >> Hello Sextus >> Yes, that's it: if it were a joint paper, you could say "Annas and Bett's use". >> See you, >> MrP If someone could comment on this, I'll promise to stop bothering you with possessives ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveSToMrp/bnhgb/post.htm#149645Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:56:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149645bagle lawyerThe example of the children is quite clear but what about the following sentences: 1) When I turned the corner, - I saw Madonna and Arnold's car. --> I saw Madonna and the car of Arnold? - I saw Madonna's and Arnold's car. --> I saw the car, jointly owned by Arnold and Madonna? - I saw Madonnas and Arnold's car. --> same meaning, but is the lack of an apostrophe correct? - I saw Madonna and Arnold's cars. --> I saw Madonna and the cars of Arnold? - I saw Madonna's and Arnold's cars. --> I saw the cars, all jointly owned by Arnold and Madonna? - I saw Madonnas and Arnold's cars. --> same meaning, but is the lack of an apostrophe correct? Thanks, this is really confusing! BLhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveSToMrp/bnhgb/post.htm#149606Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:34:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:149606bagle lawyerHi, Sorry, I cannot follow at all... Could you please explain the meaning of the sentence to me! And what about the possessives? Do you leave out the apostrophe when two or more people are involved? Sorry, I am totally lost but it seems like an interesting/important question. Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisMeansHappens/bmxvg/post.htmMon, 10 Oct 2005 21:16:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:146597bagle lawyerI am currently trying hard to adopt a more concise and succint way of expressing myself in English. Hence, I was thinking that a phrase like "This means that in cases where the loans are not repaid, ..." is to wordy. I wanted to reduce this to something like "This means that if the loans are not repaid, ..." However, I am disturbed by "that if". Is this plain wrong? Also, should I definitely try to avoid the passive in a formal context, i.e., substitute "the loans are not repaid" with "the debtors fail to repay the loans". The passive is shorter, but is it better??? Thanks a lot!http://www.englishforums.com/English/InTheCaseOfVsWith/bmnbq/post.htm#146307Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:37:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:146307bagle lawyerI guess you are right, if "loans" is the subject of the sentence. It would indeed sound very artificial to say "As for loans, they are ..." However, in a different context, e.g. "As to loans, the company was able to negogiate a better solution". I am basically looking for the most elegant phrase: "as to" sounds pretty good to me. What do you think? Thanks for your your help!http://www.englishforums.com/English/InTheCaseOfVsWith/bmnbq/post.htmSun, 09 Oct 2005 21:54:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:146267bagle lawyerHi, I am hesitant to use the phrase "in the case of a loan, ...", for it appears too verbose. Substituting "with respect to loans" or "as far as loans are concerned" does not make it any better. Is it feasible, in a formal context, to use "as for loans" or "with loans" instead? Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PoliticallyEnforceablePolitically-Enforceable/bmlpl/post.htm#145936Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:14:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:145936bagle lawyer"poltically unenforceable" sounds much better! thanks a lot! however, there are, of course, certain words, which you cannot negate that easily. e.g., viable Example: The exemption method is politically not viable." In my eyes, it gets even more complicated if you try to include a noun (Is this bad English and should I rather stick with the adjectives???): However, exempting the income ..... - .... is a politically non-viable solution. - .... is not a poltically viable solution. - .... OR: Poltically, however, exempting the income is not a viable solution. Thanks a lot for your help!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PoliticallyEnforceablePolitically-Enforceable/bmlpl/post.htmSat, 08 Oct 2005 17:25:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:145922bagle lawyerHi, This is my first post in this forum, which I have found to be a tremendous resource for problems with English grammar. Here comes my own question. Earlier today, I realized that in the case of certain composite expressions, you would rather say "more politically palatable" than "politically more palatable". However, googling doesn't help with my newest problem, which relates to negating simliar composite expressions. Should I say "not politically enforceable" or "politically not enforceable"? Thanks, Ben