http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aThomas%3fTompion&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Thomas?Tompion'en-USXMOD (Build: 3607.32596)http://www.englishforums.com/English/IdiomHoldTheFort/zxvqj/post.htm#681813Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:32:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681813thomas tompionI've never heard hold down the f ort in British English. I think we only say hold the fort .http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThereWasVsThereWere/wcncc/post.htm#681806Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:18:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681806thomas tompionI suspect that the case where portion is used with a plural form is when what follows has a very strong plural force - a portion of the many different liquids which went into those containers. But even then the singularity of a portion overrides the plural for me and for many English natives, I imagine. Here where you have a portion of the Earth I can see no problem: it has to be was not were .http://www.englishforums.com/English/InFiscal2006VsIn2006/wcwlj/post.htm#681177Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:39:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681177thomas tompionNo, Osee. I'm afraid not. Fiscal means to do with taxes. In the UK the fiscal year runs from April 6th to April 5th, to put it at its simplest. That means that you are taxed on receipts and can offset payments during that period, and have to pay taxes on what happens between those dates. The school year is something else, and in the UK starts in September and ends in July. The normal time to start at a school is thus in September and to end is July.http://www.englishforums.com/English/As/wcknp/post.htm#681169Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:12:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681169thomas tompionYes, I think that puts it very well, Liveinjapan. We could also say, more correctly perhaps, Life wouldn't be so noisy or so dangerous. Incidentally, in your sentence, I'm not happy that the it manages to refer back to life. I think the it would, at first reading, be taken to refer to the air .http://www.englishforums.com/English/AtYourEnd/wckxd/post.htm#681128Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:56:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681128thomas tompionYou can put the question like that, certainly, Tuongvan, or you can leave out the at , and say Is it raining your end? The remark would be most usual if you are on opposite ends of something; if you were on the telephone, for instance. I'm not so happy about the position of sadly in the first sentence. To rain sadly is quite poetic language and I'm not sure it's what you mean. If you mean that you are sad that it's raining, say Currently it is raining where I live, sadly . The two adverbs ending -ly are clumsy in the same sentence, and need separating. I'd prefer Sadly it's raining now where I live - that suggests mildly that you aren't there at the time, which makes the at your end a bit...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsCompulsoryCommaConjunctionSooo/hzzlq/post.htm#681025Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:03:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681025thomas tompionI'd hate to say that anything is compulsory in punctuation, but my answer to your question would be that a comma is nearly always worth considering, and often a good idea in those circumstances. If the sentence was very short, the comma would look silly. Q: What would you like for breakfast? A: Ham, and eggs, please looks silly. I'd write Ham and eggs, please . There's a lot more to punctuation than simple rules. It can be a form of personal expression. I think your two sentences are both fine, Adviseeker.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PatronizingWatermelonTutorials/wckdd/post.htm#681016Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:54:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681016thomas tompionYou haven't told us much about the relationship between these two, but Kara clearly finds Clark's efforts to explain something very irritating. Patronizing means talking down to someone, treating them as an intellectual or social inferior. A tutorial is a formal lesson, often at a university. Watermelon is clearly being used adjectivally here: Clark has used a watermelon to show Kara something in the past; maybe used it to represent her head. Some women would find that very offensive; he should have thought of another way to explain about controlling heat vision.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PreferGerundInfinitive/wcjjg/post.htm#681011Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:43:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:681011thomas tompionHi Thomas, This subject continues to be a mixed bag. What is a poor student to do? People have strong feelings one way and the other, but nobody wants to call anything incorrect. I take "I'd prefer" and "I'd rather" as more polite, but polite is not always what you mean to express. Hello Avangi, I was taking the question very literally: what do we say after I prefer if we are only talking about you coming? - not even your coming tomorrow, for the least adverbial phrase seems to make a difference. Now the preference can either be for your coming rather than someone else, or for your coming rather than doing something else. I'm not sure that makes much difference to the words used, but it makes a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PreferGerundInfinitive/wcjjg/post.htm#680924Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:50:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680924thomas tompionIn British English we can say: I prefer you to come by yourself would be fine, to make a general point about your present preferences - I prefer you to come would be odd. Most people would say, talking of the future, I'd prefer you to come or I'd rather you came. I prefer your coming by yourself - would be very arch. I prefer your coming - would also be arch, to my ear. In all these cases, I'm assuming we are saying that I'd prefer you to come rather than someone else. If you wanted to say that I'd prefer (i.e. looking at the future) you to come rather than stay at home, I think we'd say I'd rather you came with the stress on the came , or I'd prefer it if you came.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CompareLastDuchessRobertBrowning-MistressAndrewMarvell/wrchw/post.htm#679865Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:04:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679865thomas tompionOne very obvious point is that the Browning suggests spoken comments to a disinterested listener, while the Marvell is more like a letter to a girl he's trying to seduce: it doesn't use the conversational tricks which are common in the Browning. Clearly I don't want to write your whole essay for you and if you want more help from me, you would be wise to ask a more specific question, or say what in particular puzzles you.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WonderAloud/wcggw/post.htm#679863Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:45:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679863thomas tompionIt's important to realize that the sense of to wonder being used here is to consider, to debate with oneself : it means to consider the advantages and disadvantages of something, often before acting on it. Now this debate with oneself can, and often is, entirely silent; we run through in our minds the pros and cons of a particular action, say. But we can also do it aloud: we can actually say to ourselves, " if I were to do it, I would be likely to provoke...etc .". When it's done aloud, we are wondering aloud, and that is what Bobby is doing.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisIsInRegard/wcggn/post.htm#679857Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:26:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679857thomas tompionBoth suggest stilted business language. I'd say in regard to , with regard to or as regards were all correct, but I'd prefer to say regarding , if I wanted to strike that particular note. I think in regards to is unidiomatic in British English.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ImpliedMetaphor/wcgbh/post.htm#679761Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:39:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679761thomas tompionHello BlueDevil and welcome to the forum. I know that the expression "implied metaphor' is used by some people, but I don't like it because: A simile is an explicit parallel - She came into the room like a ship in full sail . A metaphor is an implicit parallel - She sailed into the room . Now if a metaphor is already implicit, it doesn't mean anything to talk of an implied metaphor: it's like talking about a red, red light . However there are some people who think the adjective is justified if the metaphor is rather subtle and elusive - she came into the room in a large dress and hove to . Now there may be people who don't know that to heave to is a nautical expression meaning to put a ship into the wind...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AsHardAsVsHardAs/wczrh/post.htm#679758Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:25:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679758thomas tompionIf the first "as" is optional, can I skip using "as" to lead off a sentence is all cases? I can only speak for British English here, and I've indicated that I suspect American may be different about this. I told you, Anon, not that the as is optional, but that it is actually wrong in the sentence you have given us, in my view. There are, however, cases where as hard as is used instead of hard as. For instance: That teacher was as hard as the headmaster. - here you can't drop the as . That teacher was hard as nails . - here you could add an as without changing the meaning, but the sentence would be slightly less idiomatic, to my ear.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnTheGo/wcgbd/post.htm#679753Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:13:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679753thomas tompionOn the go means in action , moving rather than stationary . Grammar on the go would mean grammar applied to everyday situations , I think. It's not a common expression as applied to grammar, but it's frequently appled to people: e.g. I'm very tired; I've been on the go all day .http://www.englishforums.com/English/GetHurryOnce/wczdk/post.htm#679542Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:52:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679542thomas tompionI need to get hurry to the meeting at the Municipal Center. Just cut the get - I need to hurry to the meeting at the Municipal Center is fine . I thought it wouldn’t be difficult once I’ve been nearby to visit your place. There a problem of tense sequencing. It needs to be I thought it wouldn’t be difficult once I’d been nearby to visit your place. But I’m totally lost and can’t find it. In general the tense sequencing works as follows here: I think it will be difficult once I’ve been nearby to visit your place.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisCorrect/wcvnj/post.htm#679466Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:22:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679466thomas tompionHello Mavix and welcome to the forum. I, on the other hand, wouldn't put a comma, because your sentence is short and its structure is immediately apparent. I think the sentence is entirely correct but rather strange: if you are the best man, obviously you are attending the wedding. The as is odd; it's a bit like saying I'm eating breakfast as I am a human being . I'd probably put it as two sentences to make the point: I am attending my friend's wedding. I am his best man.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AsHardAsVsHardAs/wczrh/post.htm#679456Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:47:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679456thomas tompionI think there's a difference between 1. Hard as it was, Steven tried to break the glass ... The glass was hard, but Steven tried to break it nevertheless... and 2. As hard as it was, Steven tried to break the glass ... I'm tempted to say that this means Although it was a difficult thing to do, Steven tried to break the glass.. but actually I don't think 2. is idiomatic in British English; it may be in American.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoAdjectivesInARowWhy/wczrg/post.htm#679453Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:36:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679453thomas tompionYou'd only need an and if you placed the adjectives away from the noun: The letters were small and neat. If you place them in front and use an and , I think that places more stress on the adjective immediately after the and . A talented and young French actor. This almost seems to be suggesting that most talented French actors are old. As others have said: A talented and young actor would be a little strange because the and is superfluous.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PurePleasureMillionsPeople/wbqrl/post.htm#679101Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:48:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679101thomas tompionIt means that the pleasure is pure, that is unmixed with anything which might spoil it. To me it means that the pleasure is deep rather than extreme.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThereAnotherWay/wcbkg/post.htm#679097Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:39:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679097thomas tompionIf you wanted to perpetuate the image of a journey you could even use via . My journey took me from X to Z via Y .http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnArrayOfFlowers/wcdbq/post.htm#679087Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:27:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679087thomas tompionWe don't say 'a plenty of flowers' ; it should be 'plenty of flowers' . That's not quite what an array of flowers means. It means a selection of flowers suitable perhaps for a display of some sort; it suggests that they were a wide mixture of good flowers which could go in an elaborate arrangement.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CauseDownSmear/wcdzv/post.htm#679080Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:12:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679080thomas tompionIt means that as a left-handed person writes, the passage of his hand over the fresh ink causes it to smudge. This is why many left- handed people write hooking their hand right round so that their hand is to the right of what they are writing. President Obama is an example of someone who does this. Look at one of the many photos on the web of him signing a document.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HeDoesItEveyChanceHeGets/wcdbp/post.htm#679077Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:06:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679077thomas tompionI would say there was a conjunctive preposition implied, probably with . Every chance means with every chance .http://www.englishforums.com/English/DeterminationMadeShowed-Displayed/wbpnz/post.htm#678000Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:15:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:678000thomas tompionI agree with Avangi about changing your to the , and of the three verbs I'd choose showed . Made is wrong, and displayed sounds forced and less spontaneous.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnTime/wbpwd/post.htm#677604Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:32:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677604thomas tompionThe use of reach here isn't idiomatic, Daro. In this sort of sentence, I think reach is usually transitive - the letter must reach me in time, or on time . For me in time means early enough to achieve its purpose , and on time means at the agreed moment. It would be a little strange to object that something was early and therefore not on time, but it's not out of the question.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ConfusingWords/wbxpq/post.htm#677408Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:49:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677408thomas tompionHave you looked them up in the dictionary, Sour Lemon? It's always easier to help people who show exactly what they find puzzling.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OriginMeaningCookGoose/zggmx/post.htm#677316Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:14:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677316thomas tompionI don't see how it can be dead on when it says that John Huss lived in the 17th century and you say that the Council of Constance found him guilty of heresy in 1414. I was interested in the suggestion that the expression might come from Huss. Is there any evidence for this? It's one of several expressions derived from cooking in English meaning 'to destroy someone's chances' . To settle one's hash is another. We might say 'When I lost my temper at lunch, that really cooked my goose with my father' . That would mean that my losing my temper at lunch was the last of many things which caused my father to be really angry with me.http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbAndSubjectAgreement/wbxkr/post.htm#677307Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:58:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677307thomas tompionHis knowledge of X and Y aids him - the knowledge is singular even if the subjects about which he is knowledgeable are plural. In your second example you are saying effectively His X and his Y aid him - his X and his Y amount to two things, so you use the plural.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThereNothingWrongAmericaCannotCured-RightAmerica/hkggx/post.htm#677306Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:52:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677306thomas tompionIn British English we often say of someone: there's nothing wrong with him which a good strangling wouldn't put right.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsSavvyOkToUse/wbxrl/post.htm#677299Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:36:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677299thomas tompionIn British English, 1. Both these options are fine. 2. I wouldn't use words like 'savvy' until you have a good working knowledge of the language. Slang has a tone of its own and some slang words are unsuitable for some occasions. 3. Is too flatulent to be worth saying, and would make people suspicious that you didn't mean what you say. The English use a lot of irony.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatsTheDifferenceBetween/wbxdc/post.htm#677289Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:21:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:677289thomas tompionIn British English I can't think of circumstances in which you could say I read that book before . I read means at some moment in the past I did it. You could say I read that book before going on holiday. I have read that book before would be barely literate, in my view, though some people might say it: you'd be more likely to say I have already read that book . As others have said, don't use I have read with a time marker, because it just means that reading it is one of the things you have done; it's one of your achievements in the past. Clearly the time in the past that you did it has no influence on whether or not it's one of your achievements.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TornShoes/hbwbq/post.htm#610242Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:14:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:610242thomas tompionCertainly you can. Or 'His shoes are badly torn'. Remember people would normally understand this as meaning that the uppers were ripped, and certainly not that the soles were worn.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutThoughtNothing/2/hbklk/Post.htm#608975Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:41:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:608975thomas tompionI feel rather cheap about buying you something as ephemeral as flowers. - I don't think one often feels cheap about something. It's clumsy. You've bought the flowers How is it clumsy? Would you consider a sentence like "I feel awful about hurting your feelings" to be incorrect as well? Sounds perfectly natural to me. And why does the word "about" automatically imply that the speaker (or writer) is referring to a past event? What about constructions like "I feel terrible about what I'm going to do ." Is there no way one can express the way they feel about a future event without using the phrases "at the thought of" or "at the prospect of"? Can you imagine how stilted and...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SorryUrgentAdviceNoneSooo/2/hbbjv/Post.htm#608315Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:51:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:608315thomas tompionI agree with a lot of this, Montur, but we mustn't forget the very strong plural influences which can build up in a sentence; they can make even the most careful of writers stray. What do you feel about this from More's Utopia?: It is ordinary to have public lectures every morning before daybreak, at which none are obliged to appear but those who are marked out for literature; yet a great many, both men and women, of all ranks, go to hear lectures of one sort or other, according to their inclinations: but if others that are not made for contemplation, choose rather to employ themselves at that time in their trades, as many of them do, they are not hindered, but are rather commended, as men that take care to serve their...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OneMoreRegardingIfClause/hbxpj/post.htm#595233Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:42:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:595233thomas tompionMy understanding is that if we use " by this Friday", we MUST use present perfect instead of simple present, because it's about a period of time, not a specific time. Am I right about this concept? Can we also use simple present? To be honest with you, I don't know when I can simply use simple past / simple present instead of past perfect / present perfect? So far, if it was about a period of time, I would always use the perfect tenses, and if it was about a specific time / day, i would always use the simple tenses. Could you help me to clarify this? Let me know under what kinds of situations I can just use the simple tenses instead of the perfect tenses, pls explain each situation with some examples. Many...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutThoughtNothing/2/hbklk/Post.htm#595220Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:22:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:595220thomas tompionRaen, Thank you for saying that. Don't worry; I was sure there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Best wishes, Thomashttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldHaveDoneOrWereAble/3/hbcxj/Post.htm#594057Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:41:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594057thomas tompionHi Velimir, Thank you very much for this. I think Swan is putting learners off using it in this way, because there are times when it is inappropriate, and it's very difficult to give a list of them, and 'was able' will be correct in most circumstances.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MisdeedMisdemeanorEtc/hbxjb/post.htm#593941Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:18:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593941thomas tompionHi, I'm not sure which word fits this sentence better - "misdeed" or "misdemeanor"? "The principal sat quietly behind his desk, waiting for the child to confess his worst misdeeds / misdemeanors ." Do you have another word in mind? I thought of "felony", but felt it was a bit too strong a word. The word 'deed' carries a certain amount of suggestion of derring-do; Ulysses, Perseus, and war-heroes perform deeds. Schoolboys are guilty of misdemeanours; the word suggests a much lower register. The natural thing would be "The principal sat quietly behind his desk, waiting for the child to confess his worst misdemeanours." You ask if the word 'worst' is necessary. Its...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OneMoreRegardingIfClause/hbxpj/post.htm#593910Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:42:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593910thomas tompion" If we haven't received the document by this Friday, we will give your manager a call." Is this wrong? I think it should be " If we don't received the document by this Friday, we will give your manager a call." ." However, there is " by this Friday", so I'm confused again. :P thanks, Sarah Hi Sarah, I gave you very simple rules: If he goes, I will see him Present -> Future If he went, I would see him Past -> Conditional Now you can also say If he hasn't gone, I will see him Present Perfect -> Future If he hadn't gone, I would have seen him Past Perfect -> Past Conditional Your first sentence - "If we haven't received the document by this Friday, we...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldHaveDoneOrWereAble/3/hbcxj/Post.htm#593894Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:19:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593894thomas tompionThere are moments reading what people say about English grammar where I wonder if I speak the same language as is described in the grammar books, and if there is some sort of secret conspiracy to foist on learners a rule which doesn't apply in the language as it is spoken or written. For me discussing this issue has, on several occasions, not just in this forum, produced such moments. I suspect that, as in my technical subject (Economics), errors in books become part of an erroneous collective paradigm, as writers of new books look at the rules laid out in the old books before they add any ideas of their own. It's famously easier to disprove a negative rule than to prove it - you only need a few examples from impeccable sources....http://www.englishforums.com/English/ConcernsDurationJuryTrialAlso-Shared/hbxhg/post.htm#593848Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:39:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593848thomas tompionI don't know why you don't say: Victims worry about the length of a jury trial . The modern fad of using impersonal subjects and passive constructions often obscures meaning, which means that people won't read you. I imagine that's why officials adopt it so eagerly.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutThoughtNothing/2/hbklk/Post.htm#593843Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:30:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593843thomas tompionA few points might be worth considering: 1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time. 2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there would be no language. And no point in this forum. 3. Most native English speakers distinguish between plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms. Common errors of uneducated speech in certain parts of the country, like double-negatives ( I didn't see nobody for I didn't see anybody ), or of regular verb forms ( He has went for he has gone ) are an irritation to many. I think you need to decide how best you learn a language: some learn...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldHaveDoneOrWereAble/2/hbcxj/Post.htm#593502Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:05:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593502thomas tompionHello CJ, I suspect we have a BE/AE clash here. I was disappointed that you didn't give an example to show how you would express that you managed to open the door when the fire was raging. I could say: I managed to open the door I could open the door I was able to open the door I succeeded in opening the door and, no doubt, a lot of other ways of saying it. You have rejected I could open the door. I imagine therefore that you would also reject as a possible question from the police afterwards: Could you open the door ? That would be an entirely normal question in Manchester, in my experience, but not where you come from (?) What language does Mr Swan's book teach?http://www.englishforums.com/English/EpistemicOrDeontic/2/hbjlk/Post.htm#593488Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:26:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593488thomas tompionYou must be mad to do that. 1. I believe you are mad to do that. 2. It is necessary for you to be mad in order to do that. There's no difference. #1 I believe you are mad to do that = (I believe) If you do that, you are mad. #2 It is necessary to be mad in order to do that = If you are not mad, you don't do do that = If you do that, you are mad. The only difference is that "I believe" that introduce #1. If that is the difference you want to point out, then #2 sounds like a kind of scientific truth compared to #1, with little room for subjective judgment. Hello Kooyeen, I don't think they are actually synonymous, though the one might follow from the other. Look at it this way: You hear that a child is in...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutThoughtNothing/hbklk/post.htm#593473Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:14:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593473thomas tompionThere's another problem with the sentence: flowers are plural; something is singular. To say 'something as ephemeral as flowers' is clumsy because of the singular/plural clash. I'd try to find a way round that. How? "I feel rather cheap buying things as ephemeral as flowers" sounds even more awkward to me. As for "I feel rather cheap buying ephemeral things like flowers" , it just doesn't cut it - not "flowerly" enough I guess (no pun intended.) I still prefer my original wording (i.e. "I feel rather cheap buying something as ephemeral as flowers .) Do you have a better suggestion short of changing every word in the sentence? Thanks in advance. Hello Marvin, Do you recognize...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GivenANewsOfSomeonesDeath/hblnj/post.htm#593250Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:44:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593250thomas tompionI may be responsible for the I am very sorry... In BE we could easily say: I am very sorry to hear that.. I was very sorry to hear that... I'm most upset that... I was most upset that... I suspect the past tense is usually the more appropriate, but you'll hear the present very often too.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GivenANewsOfSomeonesDeath/hblnj/post.htm#592970Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:02:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592970thomas tompionIn BE we couldn't say 'it hits me' in such a case; I find the impersonal construction very inappropriate. We'd say something like - I am very sorry... I was most upset...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EpistemicOrDeontic/hbjlk/post.htm#592954Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:36:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592954thomas tompionNo; 2 means that you can only do that if you are mad. 1. follows from it: the fact that you do it has caused me to believe you are mad. I was wrong; they are both epistemic and logically linked. Here's the syllogism: Only mad people do X. (2) You do X, therefore you must be mad (1)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Experience/hbllb/post.htm#592943Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:21:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592943thomas tompionAt Google, I experienced running a company. - sounds a little stark. I think your second example is more idiomatic: At Google, I got to experience running a company. - except that it's American. We Brits would be more likely to say 'At Google, I came to experience running a company' or 'I had the experience of running a company'.