http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aCasi&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Casi'en-USXMOD (Build: 3615.29165)http://www.englishforums.com/English/CoordinativeConstructions/2/ppxv/Post.htm#80374Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:35:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80374casiI wanna play! The argument could be stated as follows: 1. Group A says, "tom to." 2. Group B says, "tom to." 3. Group C supports "tom to" and disparages "tom to". MrP asks, "Why is Group A's 'usage' privileged by Group C? Answer: Group C is a supra-set of Group A.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CoordinativeConstructions/2/ppxv/Post.htm#80371Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:25:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80371casiDwight Bolinger - linguist "In language there are no licensed practitioners, but the woods are full of midwives, herbalists, colonic irrigationists, bonesetters and general-purpose witch doctors, some abysmally ignorant, others with a rich fund of practical knowledge - whom we shall lump together and call shamans. Sometimes their advice is sound. Sometimes it is worthless, but still it is sought because no one knows where else to turn ." Does that apply to Bolinger's advice as well?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IdLikeToKnow/qzhx/post.htm#80370Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:21:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80370casiAdditionally, I can make out it's meaning (i.e., "as"), but it sure is difficult to pronounce that way. Standard: as if = if . . . ( as in "c a t") Dialect variation: as if = if. . . (E represents the vowel sound in " a ny")http://www.englishforums.com/English/BelieveInBelieve/qgbb/post.htm#80368Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:12:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80368casia) believe in means, have faith in. b) believe means, accept as true.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AtAll/qgbr/post.htm#80367Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:10:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80367casi"at all" is used with negatives and interrogatives. It's a prepositional phrase in form, and an adverb in function. It means, in any way, to any extent. Ex: Did you sleep at all? Ex: You don't like it at all, do you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndVerb/3/pnpp/Post.htm#80365Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:04:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80365casiSeparately (each one): Explain why each one is not relevant to an accident . . . . Together (they): Explain why they are not relevant to an accident . . . .http://www.englishforums.com/English/DilemmaBetweenPresentInfinitive-Ing/qvzg/post.htm#80075Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:11:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:80075casiEither 1- or 2- works, Adam. The problem I see is with the wording "payment apply(ing)" to the customer". I am not sure what it means in that context.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndVerb/3/pnpp/Post.htm#79788Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:09:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79788casi1. Because the two types of power are separately stated in their entirety (rather than phrased as 'braking and engine power'), the speaker seems to be considering them, and the listener seems to be urged to consider them, two different items-- a compound subject-- which would require are. If the sentence were phrased as 'breaking and engine power', I would choose 'is'. My opinion as well, and yet let us not forget, Explain why each of these is . . . .http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatActiveThesePassive/qbqg/post.htm#79217Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:13:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79217casi1) I want a letter written to her. 2) I’d like a car painted in red. What about? 1) I want someone to write her a letter. 2) I'd like a red painted car. Ambiguous I want the letter written to her. a) I want the letter that someone wrote to her. => I want the letter that was written to her. b) I want someone to write her a letter. => I want the letter you write to be written to her.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Generally/qbpd/post.htm#79212Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:06:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79212casiAdditionally, a more popular approach is to phrase the sentence without s/he: 1a- A successful teacher is one who understands students well. 1b- You should not judge a leader unless you observe well how that leader treats followers. All the best, Note, if you want to rile male readers, use "she".http://www.englishforums.com/English/StativeVerbs/2/bhqk/Post.htm#79071Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:54:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79071casiI am not so sure that the verb to love cannot be used in the present continuous tense. What do you think? Cambridge, Normative Grammar. It's a wonderful book. I'm loving every moment of it. Would you also say " I am loving it"? or is it only used in ads. No or yes. There's a blog out there that says it's an anagram for ailing vomit .http://www.englishforums.com/English/StativeVerbs/2/bhqk/Post.htm#79067Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:20:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79067casiWelcome, Nigora.http://www.englishforums.com/English/StativeVerbs/2/bhqk/Post.htm#79066Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:18:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79066casiWelcome, yngvai.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HisAge/qbgz/post.htm#79064Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:16:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79064casiAdditionally, "(Gates) is one of the most important business leaders of his time ," he said.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeSmallQ/qbzw/post.htm#79061Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:11:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79061casiHey, Kate, was there a math assignment/was there any math homework? I was absent (from class).http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionAboutCommaPlacement/qbwr/post.htm#79059Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:06:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79059casiWhat about? . . . at the young age of 12 , he was already very interested in collecting and observing botanical specimens."http://www.englishforums.com/English/FewOrLittle/qbwd/post.htm#79058Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:02:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79058casiWell, "very few" means, not many, and it modifies count nouns, whereas "very little" means, not much, and it modifies non-count nouns; e.g., only a small amount of the time . No, I play it * not many . No, I play it very little .http://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleChoiceQuestion/qbbp/post.htm#79056Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:54:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79056casiFor the second one, I would have said that in both "hunt" and "chase", there was an undertone of urge that didn't go with the sentence. I like that answer. Intrude? You, Pieanne? Neeeever.http://www.englishforums.com/English/4Questions/qrhj/post.htm#79055Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:52:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79055casiHOW COME YOU KNOW MY NAME? Your email address. . .http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/2/pqkp/Post.htm#79054Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:51:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79054casiI like those tests, Cacarr.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ADogAndDogs/3/pvcp/Post.htm#79053Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:46:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:79053casiYoko: Some of my dictionaries say that "deer" is both the singular and the plural form. Additionally, Yoko, There is one deer in the park. There are two deer in the park. "deer" doesn't take -s in the plural. It's a mass noun. But in my dialect, Canadian English, as I am sure American English shares the same colloquialism (?), it's acceptable: There are two deer s in the park.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleChoiceQuestion/qbbp/post.htm#78967Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:14:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78967casiAh, yes, Pieanne, but the question is, how would you interpret these ones? . . .cried on the sight of a snake. . . . cried with the sight of a snake. Many Japanese immigrated . . . in chase of a better life. Many Japanese immigrated . . . in hunt of a better life. To me "on the sight" sounds odd. "sight" refers to eyes, and eyes look at a target, no on top of a target. "with the sight" sounds odd, too, for the same reason. "in chase" and "in hunt" sound OK, but not within that context. Something to do with the meaning of pursue, as in run after life and pursue and kill life.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GotNothingBack/qbcl/post.htm#78946Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:51:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78946casiNo affection, no reciprocity. If you hug a sack of potatoes, it's not going to hug you back--hopefully.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/4/pqhb/Post.htm#78945Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:48:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78945casiPerhaps a negated possibility is more likely to be past. What about "would", though, or is that different from "could"? EX: I wouldn't do that if I were you. Is it possible that "would" is the future past of "will"? If something is 'no longer possible', any 'possibility' it ever had must now reside in the past. I like that answer.http://www.englishforums.com/English/4Questions/qrhj/post.htm#78918Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:06:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78918casiPieanne, CJ doesn't seem to be around, so I hope you don't mind if I provide a few words. Based on the distribution of CJ's examples, I believe "Past" is in reference to when the event actually took place: Major calls (present tense) for peace summit. =>the event took place in the past, before the headline was writtenhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/4/pqhb/Post.htm#78912Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:52:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78912casicould you please show me an inflected modal. Well, aside from MrP's "could", there's She has to go. (Present) She had to go. (Past) But then again, the kind of "inflection" we're concerned about in this discussion is temporal in nature, and not morphological in form. That is, if it's not called "inflection", then what is it called? Is there a difference between run/ran and has to/had to, and if not, is has to/had to not a true modal? Moreover, why is it that in order to get "could" to bend time, we have to negate it? I can swim. (non-past) I could swim. (non-past ~ past) ambiguous if I wanted to ~ when I was young I couldn't swim. (past)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/2/pqkp/Post.htm#78903Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:01:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78903casiPhrasal Verbs are easily distinguished from prepositional verbs. I'm not all that convinced it's so cut 'n dried. Meaning plays a vital role. She looked over the fence . (adverb; she looked where?) ?The fence was looked over. She looked over the fence . (direct object) The fence was looked over. (given the once over, inspected) Moreover, for the majority of non-native speakers, the acceptability of a passivized sentence is difficult to determine: She dropped by the house . (adverb; reflexive: she dropped herself by the house) ?The house was dropped by. She dropped off the keys . (direct object) The keys were dropped off. And then there's insertion, and movement to contend with: She dropped me off the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSame/pqmm/post.htm#78896Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:26:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78896casiThanks, MrP. Your b) rings true to form now: b) This computer is the same as that (which) we saw in the other shop.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhomWasGivenTheBook/4/pxwp/Post.htm#78845Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:35:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78845casiIt was my attempt at humor. : . . ( (L)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78843Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:31:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78843casiAll prepositional verbs take prepositional objects. True. But what do we do with ambi-structural "looked after"? They looked (DO) They looked after (DO) What evidence is there that speakers don't parse "look after" as a unit and "the sheep" as its direct object? It seems all too neat 'n tidy to lump verbs of phrase into two categories. The distinction between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs is based on modification, or rather determining whether the bits that follow the verb are an integral part of the verb's meaning (i.e., DO) or modification (i.e., Adverb). Going back to our example "after the sheep", it definitely does not function as an adverb; it's an object of some sort, we know that, and whether it's a DO...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhomWasGivenTheBook/4/pxwp/Post.htm#78839Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:49:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78839casiI found this hilariously funny! Then I thought, "Gosh, maybe he was serious!" (Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic came to mind!) Ahem, . . . Terry?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ILoveForumContribute/qrnz/post.htm#78837Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:32:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78837casiWelcome, Khoff. Contribute away! Guidelines: http://www.englishforums.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3014http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/3/pqhb/Post.htm#78824Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:45:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78824casi'inflection': the modification of the form of a word to express the different grammatical relations. BINGO! And the prize goes to Paco.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhomWasGivenTheBook/3/pxwp/Post.htm#78822Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:41:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78822casiCJ: Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) Eq: It's not ok for me, I think it's not in standard E nglish. Not positive though, someone check it up? I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" "doesn't sound all that strange to me", either. Not the standard though, as I'm sure Jim would agree. Oddly enough, I've heard something like it (Do Jim and I watch the same TV shows, movies?) I believe it's an example of implied "to".http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/3/pqhb/Post.htm#78817Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:20:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78817casi"Linguists reserve the technical term "tense" for true inflection, . . . . . . I'm one, so yeah, I know. Cacarr, have you had a chance to read the article? Putting terminology aside, what is it about the distribution of modals that permits a change in time that's seemingly separate in function from tense? I couldn't do it. (Past) Isn't 'could' the past of 'can'? I can't do it. (Present) I could, if you help me. (Modal)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WordOrder/qrgw/post.htm#78813Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:01:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78813casiTry, 1. (Watching) From Road NO.1, George saw the car moving at 80kmph. 2. Standing on Road NO.1, George saw the car moving at 80kmph.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MainAndAuxiliary/qrhw/post.htm#78812Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:57:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78812casiAll except two of them are correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/3/pqhb/Post.htm#78810Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:52:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78810casiCacarr, it depends really on how one defines "tense" and "inflect". The following article discusses that topic as well as mentions how syntactic tense plays a role. Most of the posters on this thread have had a chance to read it. That's not to say they agree or disagree with it. It's food for thought. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/tense.htmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ACoupleQuestionsGrammar/2/ndcj/Post.htm#78807Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:37:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78807casiI agree with the other posters. Additionally, with eliptical structures, the comma might be serving as a signpost: EX: I like sushi. Me , too. (As for me , I like sushi, too.)http://www.englishforums.com/English/OfferServiceWorkout/2/plmd/Post.htm#78799Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:45:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78799casiYou, Pastel, make us that way. (L)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WordOrder/4/pkhx/Post.htm#78798Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:43:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78798casi"any" functions as an adjective or as a (pro)noun. Do you have any shoes? Do you have any blue shoes? Do you have any?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/2/pqhb/Post.htm#78796Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:39:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78796casiWelcome, Cacarr.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/2/pqhb/Post.htm#78795Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:34:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78795casiEq: modals can be inflected for tense but only syntactic tense. Excellent point, Eq, and it feeds well into the discussion, but I'm not sure every one here is familiar with the term syntactic tense .http://www.englishforums.com/English/Throw/pqxl/post.htm#78571Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:33:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78571casiIt means to give a party. A party is a celebration in its own right.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSame/pqmm/post.htm#78569Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:27:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78569casiJTT: My guess, Casi, though I may be wrong, is that this is a 'test' made up by non-native speakers. It's a good "guess", and one I took into consideration as well, JT, but given we don't know for sure where the exercise was taken from, it's best to provide an answer based on what we do know. There could have also been typos. Colloquial and elliptical phrases are not things that normally get big exposure on tests. True, but again, we don't know who designed the exercise. For all we know, it could have been based on colloquial speech. That is what a great deal of students are after these days, isn't it? But, nonetheless, your question is valid, not to mention would have served the poster well if it'd been asked....http://www.englishforums.com/English/ComeInAllColors/2/ppwh/Post.htm#78564Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:17:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78564casiIf I saw it in a BrE article, I'd probably think it related to some kind of Easter gift: fluffy baby chickens . . . . Chicks come in many colors. Literal meaning See NBC's slide show http://www.nbc10.com/news/2985204/detail.html Figurative meaning Females differ, primarily in personality; secondarily: appearance)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenWouldCould/pqhb/post.htm#78551Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:40:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78551casiCJ: . . . "could" often means "would be able to", so in a way "could" sometimes contains the meaning of "would" within it. Agreed. Not true synonyms of course, as you noted, but close enough. My dialect shares that distribution. EX: I would (be able to) do it, but. . . EX: I could do it, but . . .http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78544Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:18:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78544casiI agree with Eq: The boy looked after the sheep. (Phrasal verb)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSame/pqmm/post.htm#78543Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:15:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78543casiA. *This computer is the same like we saw in the other shop. B. This computer is the same as we saw in the other shop. C. *This computer is the same that we saw in the other shop. D. *This computer is the same as that we saw in the other shop. Only B. works in my dialect (North American). It's colloquial, and it's short for, This computer is the same as (the one) we saw in the other shop. I would be interested in hearing if D. works in other dialects or idiolects, and why.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Both/pxwh/post.htm#78540Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:07:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78540casi'They' and 'both' in "they both" are appositional just like 'we' and 'Japanese' in "we Japanese" are. . Interesting. . . I'd like to hear more about that. the result of googling is: 154,000 hits for "they both are ... " and 1460,000 for "they are both... ". So I have to admit the latter should sound more natural to native speakers. Well, I'm not all that convinced given we don't know what the latter's "..." represents. Again, preference can be based on whether on not "both" + subject complement (SC) lends itself to ambiguity, which is not to say every speaker takes that into consideration, or is aware of the ambiguity housed in -both (SC)-. (By the way, and this in going back to my lack of understanding of the term...