http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aMrPedantic&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:MrPedantic'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PredicateNominative/lxpnq/post.htm#992155Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:16:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992155mrpedanticHello Anon, "Are" is indeed the linking verb; but I would call "the consent form, sign-in sheet, list of locations and my card" the subject. "Attached are" is thus an inverted predicate; and "attached" itself I would call an adjectival subject complement. It wouldn't surprise me if there were other interpretations, though. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Diagramming/lxppg/post.htm#992153Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:05:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992153mrpedanticCould I just check, Anon: would you like this sentence diagrammed?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessiveApostrophes/lxpqr/post.htm#992152Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:04:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:992152mrpedanticHello JJ, Always the latter. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DeterioratePointCondtion/lmwzv/post.htm#984985Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:26:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:984985mrpedanticHello Alc, First: "My mental condition is close to that of hers". Then: "has deteriorated" > "had deteriorated". Which small change makes both these continuations possible: 1. ...a point where I could not cope with the outside world; which is when... 2. ...a point where I could not cope with the outside world; at which point... (but not "a point when"). You would use "which is when" in a slightly less formal context; or perhaps where you had already used "point", as in your example. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Justice/kcchz/post.htm#850345Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:47:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:850345mrpedanticI think I would take it as defining too, and thus omit the commas in the extended version: 1. Distributive justice which is absolute, rigid, and unvarying must be observed by anyone who... MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDidTheySay/kcwdq/post.htm#847477Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:38:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:847477mrpedanticHello Renan, I hear "lonely" too. It may be that some other version of the song has "younger", though. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/London/kcwgm/post.htm#847463Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:33:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:847463mrpedanticHello Non, welcome to English Forums! Would this be for a test or essay of some kind? (Unfortunately we wouldn't be able to give answers for tests or essays; though if you wanted to put down your thoughts, we'll look at them for you.) Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OnGenitiveAntecedants/jqzdg/post.htm#837785Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:15:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:837785mrpedanticIf the original examples are grammatically objectionable, then so is e.g. 1. Whose mother abandoned him when he was two years old? — which would be bad news for quizmasters. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfComma/jqpjp/post.htm#834824Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:23:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:834824mrpedanticNot the second version, Anon. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsWordExperienceSingulariaTantum/jqzxx/post.htm#832236Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:22:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:832236mrpedantic(Strictly speaking, Anon, "singularia tantum" is the plural; the singular is "singulare tantum".)http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsForeverGrammaticallyCorrect/jpmmm/post.htm#829138Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:32:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:829138mrpedanticGrammatically, I think it can only be "correct", since "forever" can be a noun, as in: 1. It took me forever . (Cf. "It took me an hour ".) Semantically, you might say that it's not quite right; but presumably that slight not-quite-right-ness is the source of its appeal (for those who use it). Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsForeverGrammaticallyCorrect/jpmmm/post.htm#829085Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:43:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:829085mrpedanticHello Anon, 1. I haven't seen you in forever. I would take this as a jocular variant of: 2. I haven't seen you in an age . For "an age", which is already hyperbolic, the speaker substitutes "forever", which piles hyperbole on hyperbole, and raises it to the power of impossibility. Cf. 3. It took me forever. (Clearly it didn't.) All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MovieTitles/jpmdj/post.htm#829025Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:31:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:829025mrpedanticThere is some variation; the Times and the Oxford University Press set film titles in italic. Some might use underlining where italics aren't available, e.g. in handwritten texts. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OnePair/jpmwc/post.htm#828991Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:04:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:828991mrpedanticI would opt for "delivers", Anon; here "pair" is the subject of the verb. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MightModalOrAdverb/jpbch/post.htm#826436Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:13:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:826436mrpedanticAs you know, M., "might" is conventionally regarded as a "modal verb" in such uses. However, I seem to recall a thread in the distant past, in which you suggested that it might be adverbial. You never elaborated on that suggestion; but you are welcome to do so now. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisCorrect/jxqxv/post.htm#826404Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:32:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:826404mrpedanticIn a previous these ones/those ones thread, I remember, there were some strong objections to the formation; so yes, geography does seem to affect its likely reception!http://www.englishforums.com/English/AmbiguousSentences/jprpl/post.htm#825716Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:58:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825716mrpedanticIn fact, you were quicker, and you found one more! (Someone must be able to find a 6th...)http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisCorrect/jxqxv/post.htm#825698Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:44:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825698mrpedanticIn the UK, you might hear either "these ones" or "these". MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AmbiguousSentences/jprpl/post.htm#825696Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:37:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825696mrpedanticHello J., Try: 1. I should ask the officer (who works in the park) when we leave 2. I should ask the officer who works in the park when we leave 3. I should ask the officer "who works in the park" when we leave 4. I should ask the officer "who works in the park when we leave?" MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IThoroughlyImbuedImmenceKnowledge-EnglishLiterature/jxlmq/post.htm#825680Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:28:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825680mrpedanticI would say no; though you might say: 1. I am filled with respect for his knowledge of English literature. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ShowingInconsistency/jxrgg/post.htm#825630Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:30:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825630mrpedanticI didn't see your opinion at that link. What is it? I don't have an opinion, Anon. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoeverVsWhomever/2/bhlgj/Post.htm#825628Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:27:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825628mrpedanticYou're welcome, '981 – I'm glad it helped! My experience of English grammar books is quite limited; I wouldn't know which to recommend. Mister Micawber would have a much better idea – with luck he'll come across this thread and suggest something. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/YoureSwell/jxncq/post.htm#824356Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:32:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824356mrpedanticIf you were to hear it in the UK, it would most probably be in conscious parody of old films, US tv shows, etc., and probably in a context of sarcasm ("Well, that's just swell", etc.). (It would be quite a weak form of humour.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IThoroughlyImbuedImmenceKnowledge-EnglishLiterature/jxlmq/post.htm#824345Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:04:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824345mrpedantic"To be imbued with" means "to be saturated with"; thus it would be difficult for you to be imbued with another person's knowledge. But you might be imbued with his thoughts or opinions, e.g. 1. I am thoroughly imbued with his theories about English literature. Though as MM and CJ say, it would not be very attractive. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoYouReallyNeedThatSuffix/jxzkd/post.htm#822900Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:12:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:822900mrpedanticI'm afraid your implicit argument is ball, Anon. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OffOf/3/cdrd/Post.htm#822899Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:10:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:822899mrpedanticNot at all. Where? Please be precise. If your author intended to say that adverbial "off" is becoming prepositional, but that prepositional "off" already exists: a) he would have nowhere to park the non-prepositional adverbial uses of "off"; b) he would have no examples to park under "already existing prepositional 'off'", since he has already parked them under "adverbial-becoming-prepositional 'off'". It's really very simple. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HasTake/jxwzm/post.htm#822882Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:52:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:822882mrpedanticHello Anon, In ordinary standard English, the correct form is "has taken". It is the 3rd person singular of the present perfect of "take". Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseTranslateTheseLatinSentences-IntoEnglish/6/vzmvr/Post.htm#822881Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:50:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:822881mrpedanticThe translation is certainly more grammatical than the original. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OffOf/3/cdrd/Post.htm#821462Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:04:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:821462mrpedanticWhere did he say that? I think he said that the adverb is becoming a preposition. I take that to mean he predicts the death of the adverb "off". His article as a whole presents prepositional "off" as a new development. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SurfaceUse/jxrxj/post.htm#821393Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:10:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:821393mrpedanticIt's fine. Cf. http://www.englishpage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13016 for a more detailed discussion. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ShowingInconsistency/jxrgg/post.htm#821392Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:05:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:821392mrpedanticI'm intrigued by the good doctor's line in analogical inference: A woolly bear is not a bear, a ladyfinger is not a finger, and a ladybird is not a bird, as we have noted previously in this blog. By the same token, alright is not the same as all right. But if his logic is doubtful, his entomology is sound. By the way, you may find this discussion congenial, Anon: http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/314100491 Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OffOf/2/cdrd/Post.htm#821368Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:41:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:821368mrpedanticYou have misread the post: I doubt whether "off of" is a "double preposition". I would take the "off" as adverbial. i.e. "I would take the 'off' in 'off of' as adverbial". Elsewhere, "off" can be a preposition (e.g. "off the wall", "off the rack"). I'm surprised your linkee should think this a recent development, by the way; the prepositional use of "off" is recorded from Anglo-Saxon times. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GerundsBothNounAndVerb/jnhcg/post.htm#818483Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:48:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:818483mrpedanticAbsolutely right, Rocky. Your answer is spot on. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AdmittedHospitalAdmitted-Hospital/jncpq/post.htm#816423Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:32:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:816423mrpedanticHello J., In British English, you would say: 1. She was admitted to hospital yesterday. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectSentencesPlease/jnckz/post.htm#816333Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:48:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:816333mrpedanticWe have seen some complaints posted by some members in some forums regarding our website layout and simplicity. Remember, we are just genius traders , not webmasters, and we are always dedicating our time in trading to satisfy our members and to be the best HYIP in the world so don’t have much time on concentrating on our websites, nor we are much concerned about it at this moment. Only scam HYIPs and sites concentrate much on website layout, instead of satisfying members and finally scam them . Hello Anon, I am hesitant to correct texts of a contentious nature; but I've underlined the parts that might need more attention. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OnlyDeadFishGoWithTheFlow/jmkcd/post.htm#814405Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:51:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:814405mrpedantic1. Only dead fish go with the flow. Or live fish; e.g. Atlantic salmon, when they migrate to the sea. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OfA/jljwd/post.htm#814396Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:40:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:814396mrpedanticSurely one knows something is Standard English because some authority has told them it's so. I doubt that it's such a pedestrian and conscious process, for most native speakers. It might be true to say that you know that something is standard English until someone who seems like an authority tells you it's not, on the other hand. At which point, you accept the new information, reject it, or check the consensus. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MeaningDDay/4/brlpm/Post.htm#814370Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:18:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:814370mrpedanticAllied military planners of the Second World War were not much given to flamboyant apocalyptic doomsaying. If they could have got away with calling it Plan WQ/675a(ii), they would have done so. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/2/jmckg/Post.htm#813281Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:49:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813281mrpedanticWhat are we going to teach them if we do not teach them Standard English? Yes; and to some extent, standard English could be defined as the form of English non-natives learn. Another consideration is consistency. If a native speaker uses non-standard phrase X, he is likely to use non-standard phrases Y and Z too, and to speak with one of several accents. In other words, his English will be consistent and unremarkable. In a non-native speaker, on the other hand, the use of non-standard phrases and pronunciations is likely to be inconsistent. This may make his English sound "odd", or less competent than it is. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectVerbAgreement/3/jwxvn/Post.htm#813276Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:29:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813276mrpedantic1. He or I is/am/are to go. "Am" and "is" still sound odd to me; which only leaves "are". That sounds odd too, but not as odd as "am" or "is". My choice isn't popular with writers on grammar; in texts from Murray's 1795 Grammar to various online style guides, I find recommendations that the nearest pronoun should govern the verb (thus "am" would be preferred, in #1). Murray also recommends rephrasing, exactly as AS suggests. An alternative would be to use an invariable verb (e.g. "must"). MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MetaphorsByWhichWeLive/jlpbb/post.htm#813270Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:11:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813270mrpedanticAre there really grammar books out there that continue to insist that ending a sentence with a preposition is wrong? I've only ever seen texts that tell you that the texts that tell you that ending a sentence with a preposition is wrong are wrong...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GoingToTheBody/jlqnp/post.htm#813268Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:05:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813268mrpedanticYes, that's "going to the body", and from the context suggests an attack on the body, as opposed to the head. All the best, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldAndNostalgia/2/jmcch/Post.htm#813189Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813189mrpedanticMrP, I'm asking whether the "would" versions are more often associated with/used to express nostalgia than the simple past versions are. We all know that "would" versions can also be used to talk about nasty pasts, so to speak. We like to repeat pleasant experiences; and we look back on them with pleasure. Thus verbal forms that express habitual actions are of course likely to be found in contexts that imply repeated pleasant experiences. But they are also likely to be found in contexts that imply repeated unpleasant experiences. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldAndNostalgia/jmcch/post.htm#813134Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:18:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813134mrpedanticI'm not sure MrP's additions are real or common examples. They seem a little forced. I'll look out for similar ones in the real world. Google on "would hit me", old chap. You'll find plenty of non-nostalgic examples. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldAndNostalgia/jmcch/post.htm#812057Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:28:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:812057mrpedanticBut cf. 1. When I was a child, I would often cry for hours at a time. 2. When I was a child, my father would often beat me with his walking stick. 3. When I was a child, we would often go for days without food. ("Such, such were the joys...") MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/jmckg/post.htm#812045Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:22:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:812045mrpedanticI've given other examples in the past. That's fine; but your text says that only one example is enough to show that something is "quite common". (Which would make for a startling new interpretation of googlewhacking.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/jmckg/post.htm#811994Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:29:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:811994mrpedanticI'm not sure you can reasonably say that you need "only one example" to make the point that something is "quite common", as your text does. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BareNpAdverbials/jljhd/post.htm#810652Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:37:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:810652mrpedanticIf the first example is "bare", Anon, and the only difference between the two examples lies in the difference in word count (i.e. the absence of a preposition), what would you infer?http://www.englishforums.com/English/InAtTheDarkPlace/jlqcm/post.htm#810641Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:33:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:810641mrpedanticHello Vince, You can say: 1. The fireflies shine in the dark place. 2. The fireflies are shining in the dark place. 3. The fireflies shine at night. 4. The fireflies shine at the top of the stairs. But probably not: 5. The fireflies shine at the dark place. Best wishes, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Spacing/jlqmn/post.htm#810632Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:24:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:810632mrpedanticHello Anon, I wouldn't do it myself; but it's still quite common in British usage, and seems to be taught on typing and secretarial courses, etc. I think the rationale is to permit a distinction between a stop after an abbreviation and a stop at the end of a sentence. (In copy prepared for publication, however, it will vex your designer, and is therefore better omitted.) All the best, MrP