http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3adinosm&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:dinosm'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TensesInReportedSpeech/vjnk/post.htm#22499Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:02:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:22499dinosmYes, "the professor said that mathematics wasn't easy" is the grammatically correct form and it is what should be said if you want to speak and write correctly. What I meant above is that to me personally this structure doesn't sound logical, and it is the only part of grammar that I would (and most of the time do) misuse on purpose!http://www.englishforums.com/English/WillAre/vhlh/post.htm#22492Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:21:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:22492dinosmRegarding future tense structures, 'will' implies a wish, a willingness to do something. "I will fight" means that I really want to fight and that's what I am going to do. "I'm going to fight" denotes a future event but does not imply the same willingness as 'will' in the previous example (at least that's how I've come to understand it). What we learn in language school is that the present continuous tense provides the strongest form of speaking about the future. "I am fighting this guy" means I will definitely, absolutely, beyond any doubt fight this guy, no matter what.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronouncingWrittenThings-Spelling/2/vjwc/Post.htm#22491Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:07:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:22491dinosmYes, 'nought' is still widely used in the UK to denote zero.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TensesInReportedSpeech/vjnk/post.htm#22490Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:04:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:22490dinosmI also feel many times that reported speech rules should simply not be there, for the same reason as mentioned above, namely, that if something is constant in nature, I feel it's awkward to refer to it in the past. The professor told us: "Mathematics isn't easy". The professor told us that mathematics isn't easy. If I said "wasn't" there, it would sound to me like mathematics wasn't easy when the professor told us so, but it IS easy now. Instead, if I use "isn't" the ambiguity is gone, and it sounds to me like mathematics wasn't easy when the professor told us so, and is still not easy. Of course, I know all about reported speech tense change rules... But it's perhaps the only part of language grammar (it's not just an english...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheWordProvince/vgqh/post.htm#21718Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:03:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21718dinosm'Territory outside Italy', or 'conquered territory' according to Collins.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfTheWordGood/vhbh/post.htm#21717Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:58:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21717dinosmThe word 'good' is grammatically an adjective ('he is a good man') or a noun ('for the good of the country'), not an adverb. Hence, although many people use it in ways like 'I can dance good', that usage is incorrect.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassiveVoice/vzvd/post.htm#21291Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:06:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21291dinosm'The Spy has been being watched' - it doesn't sound very natural to me, as I've never heard anyone use it like this. What my English teacher of 10 years ago would probably suggest in this case would be to rephrase it thus: 'The Spy has been under surveillance...'http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheLongestWordWorld/vzkn/post.htm#21290Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:03:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21290dinosmThis has been debated before, I don't remember if it was in this forum or elsewhere, so I will reply once again. If you consider any protein's name in this - I'm sorry for the word - ridiculously expanded form to be an actual word, then there deifinitely exist bigger proteins (and thus words) than the one mentioned above. However, nobody ever uses this kind of name for proteins, and as I've never seen this name form in any kind of literature (and as I am studying the subject I can speak with a fair amount of certainty), I'm seriously doubting how valid it is to call such contraptions 'words'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/VeryMuch/vzdb/post.htm#21195Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:24:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21195dinosmOf the two sentences, the first one ('I very much hope to improve my English') sounds more natural to me, but they both mean the same thing to me, that is that you have a great hope to improve your English. 'I hope to improve my English very much' sounds to me more like you hope to see a great improvement in your English, rather than having a great hope as in the previous sentences.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatIsForeshadowing/vclq/post.htm#20451Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:55:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20451dinosmCollins English Dictionary enlightens us thus: foreshadow vb. (tr.) to show, indicate, or suggest in advance; presage. In other words, foreshadowing is showing in a predictive way some future event. Example: 'The president's political mistakes foreshadowed his resignation.'http://www.englishforums.com/English/WordUsage/vcmr/post.htm#20450Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:49:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20450dinosmI see it fairly often in written texts, and it feels quite normal to me to use it in my writing as well.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ItsUsWhoSingularOrPlural/vcrw/post.htm#20273Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:31:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20273dinosmAnd who says all British magazines speak English correctly? My way of thinking about this one would be that we use the nominative case ('I', 'he', etc.) when the subordinate clause refers to its subject (sorry, I don't know how to say this in grammatically correct terms), as in 'It is I who have to apologize', and we use the causative case ('me', 'him', etc.) when the subordinate clause refers to its object, as in 'It is her you should take with you.' Collins English Dictionary says: Although the nominative case is traditionally required after the verb 'to be', even careful speakers say 'it is me' (or him, her, etc.) rather than 'it is I' in informal contexts.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Tango/2/vbvg/Post.htm#20171Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:07:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20171dinosmHaha, no, to my knowledge there is no such dance, so you're welcome to invent one! At any rate, 'Tango' the drink may have been named that as a play on the word 'tangerine' (=orange-like fruits).http://www.englishforums.com/English/With/vbmd/post.htm#20170Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:00:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20170dinosmFirst of all, it should be 'whom do you live with', or 'with whom do you live'. I'd say the first one is by far the most frequently used of the two.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Concordance/vbnr/post.htm#20168Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:56:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20168dinosmI'm not a native speaker, so I may well be wrong about this, but I would pick number 3. When I hear 'what' in such a structure, I always think of a singular 'something', regardless of how many things that 'what' might be referring to later in the sentence.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Tango/2/vbvg/Post.htm#20166Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:50:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20166dinosmThank you. Some people do think I am quite an able dance student, but with only about a year's dancing experience, I still have a long way ahead!http://www.englishforums.com/English/TensesWithIHave/vrmq/post.htm#20086Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:45:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20086dinosmI think the names foreign learners of English give to the tenses are perhaps a bit different than those native learners are taught in schools. At any rate, 'I have been...' is the tense I know as 'present perfect'. It denotes something that happened or started in the past but it or its effects still go on in the present. 'I have always thought it's not true' = at some point in the past I started thinking it's not true, and I still think that. 'I have known her for years' = I got to know her some time in the past and I still know her.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Tango/vbvg/post.htm#20083Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20083dinosmTango the drink is an invention counting only a year or two of life, while tango the dance is an invention of the early 20th century - so it's quite clear where the saying 'it takes two to tango' comes from! And as for a little background info, tango is indeed a very close-contact dance for two people, (usually) a man and a woman. The man leads the whole dance (even if somewhat less nowadays than in earlier times) and the woman has to 'read' the man's lead and follow properly. This communication between the dancing partners requires this close contact in order for the man's leading 'signals' to be clearly felt by his partner. The woman, in turn, has to respond properly and quickly enough to her partner's lead, so that the dance goes...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoeverHeThey/vbhg/post.htm#20080Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:28:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20080dinosmI think the correct form is 'they/them' whenever you want to say 'him' or 'her' but have no way of knowing the gender of the person in advance, even when it is only one person you're referring to.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Preposition/vbcz/post.htm#20027Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:42:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20027dinosmAlso, I think it should be 'at the ATIA 2004 Conference'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionAboutAdverbs/vbcc/post.htm#20025Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:32:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20025dinosmI can't see a difference in meaning between the two sentences either, and the second one does sound a bit weird, as in syntax that you wouldn't normally hear.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheOriginHistoryEnglish/vrmm/post.htm#20023Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:30:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20023dinosmAn interesting book (although by no means a complete reference) on this topic is 'Speak, a short history of languages', by Tore Janson.http://www.englishforums.com/English/EitherOrOrNeitherNor/vbvn/post.htmFri, 23 Jan 2004 01:22:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:20022dinosm"This program doesn't seem to slow down neither my computer nor my downloads." Is this correct, or should neither/nor be used instead? And how about this one: "This program doesn't seem to either slow down my computer or make my downloads go any slower."http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForWhomTheBellTolls/dpvb/post.htm#19240Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:13:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:19240dinosmIn Greece, this phrase (in greek, of course) is nowadays used as a saying or proverb, when something bad is going to happen to someone. For example, if I'm looking for someone to, say, beat him up, people could ask themselves 'for whom the bell tolls', meaning whom it is I'm looking for to beat up.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MapleLeafs/dxmz/post.htm#19029Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:22:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:19029dinosmCheck also my post here ! The 'Maple Leafs' is indeed a proper name, and as such it has lost all connections with the real thing we like to call a maple leaf, semantically at least. When such words are 'reset' and become proper names, or otherwise come to denote things completely unrelated to their former meaning, their grammar is also 'reset', and so the regular plural suffix applies.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PluralOfMouse/dxmv/post.htm#19027Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:16:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:19027dinosmEverywhere I've seen it, they call them 'mice', as I believe is the correct form. 'Walkman' is a complex word that means something entirely different than its constituent words, i.e. it does not refer to a man who is walking. In this case, 'man' doesn't carry its original meaning any more, but it simply a part of a larger word, whose plural should therefore end with a regular suffix '-s'. A computer mouse, even if it isn't a real live walking cheese-gnawing animal, is still two separate words, one of which ('mouse') denotes something we unanimously call a mouse. Since it is a very much individual word, it will follow its irregular pattern and become mice when we want to talk about 'computer mice'. Sony evades the issue by...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PluralForHair/dxkz/post.htm#19024Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:44:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:19024dinosmDon't you use 'hairs' when you want to refer to hair strands as individual objects in a group, as opposed to the whole of someone's hair? As in 'I have split hairs'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/InspirationMeaning/cqcc/post.htm#14519Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:56:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14519dinosmOn the contrary, comedy brings out the wittiest of wordplays! Anyway, the sentence is correct; if you want to substitute 'none' for 'all', you will also have to change 'ever' with 'never', so as to keep the meaning the same (keep one negation in the sentence instead of introducing an additional one)- however, 'all of us will never miss it' sounds quite a bit awkward, compared to 'none of us will ever miss it' (an alternative might be 'we will never miss it').http://www.englishforums.com/English/MainPurposes/cqcj/post.htm#14516Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:40:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14516dinosmI think it would be up to the writer and their definition of what a single purpose is. If you see 'educate and entertain' as a single unified goal, you can say 'the main purpose'. I think it's a pretty liberal decision in this case, rather than strict grammar rules, that should apply.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Ambiguity/cqcl/post.htm#14515Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:36:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14515dinosmI think the sentence 'He can't wear anything' as it is, confers the first meaning of 'He can wear nothing.' It's a simple negation and the two sentences are totally equivalent as far as semantics is concerned. If you want to confer the second meaning, you'd have to say it as 'He can't wear just anything.'http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheUseOfIMeAndMyself/cqdz/post.htm#14514Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:21:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14514dinosm'I' and 'me' are different cases of the personal pronoun. Simply put, 'I' is used as the subject of a sentence, 'me' as the object. Examples: - I am a good swimmer. (well this is an easy one, we don't say 'Me am...') - He kicked me. ('me' is the object of the sentence and thus we don't say 'He kicked I') 'Myself' is not a substitute to 'me' or 'I', but it is used to give emphasis, as in: - She doesn't like it, but I myself find it very attractive. (we want to emphasize the difference between her opinion and my own) 'Myself' can be a substitute to 'me' when referring to an action taken about the speaker's person, like: - I want to hit myself in the head. (we don't really say 'I want to hit me...') As I am not a language...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Serendipity/cdnl/post.htm#14355Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:44:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14355dinosmAccording to Collins English Dictionary, 'serendipity' was "...coined by Horace Walpole, from the Persian fairytale The Three Princes of Serendip, in which the heroes possess this gift".http://www.englishforums.com/English/LongestWordEnglishLanguage/6/jh/Post.htm#14336Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:45:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14336dinosmOk... Protein names (and proteins include enzymes, proteases, and all other biological macromolecules consisting of aminoacids) cannot count, simply because we don't know what the longest one is. You mentioned a Tryptophan Synthetase, of some 267 aminoacids' length... in my university course I've been working with proteins more than double the size of that, which would obviously make much larger words, were we to recite their aminoacid residue names one next to the other and call it a word. It isn't - or shouldn't be thought of as a word, anyway.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoeverVsWhomever/cxcp/post.htm#14334Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:34:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14334dinosmBeing a native Greek speaker, I can always just translate a sentence into Greek in order to see what the correct case (where forms such as who/whom have to be chosen from), since in Greek all grammar cases are well in use and perfectly equivalent to the - sadly - now defunct English ones - even the 'It is I' clause makes perfect sense if translated to Greek (for Greek speakers anyway). So, the answer to the above question is indeed to "Give this package to whomever comes to the door". Translating to Greek tells me that, but this also helps: "Give it to him who comes to the door." We wouldn't say "give it to he who comes...", would we?http://www.englishforums.com/English/MeaningOfTheSentences/cpkr/post.htm#14333Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:25:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14333dinosmWhen you're released from jail before you do the whole time, you're in 'probation', meaning you are in constant watch by someone (a probation or parole officer), have to give him regular reports, and can't do certain things like drink alcohol - which is what 'sober' refers to; it means 'not drunk'. Quote from 'Back To The Future III' just flashed in: "In ten minutes, he will be as sober as a priest on Sunday."http://www.englishforums.com/English/MayAndMight/cpbb/post.htm#14330Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:58:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14330dinosmThe above being true, 'might' is actually the past tense and also the subjunctive form of 'may', although it is slowly losing this identity nowadays and is used mostly as described above. Still, careful writers will not use 'may' when referring to the past or when the subjunctive needs be used. 'You might have been more credible if...' sounds and is indeed more natural than 'You may have been more credible if...'http://www.englishforums.com/English/ComparedWithOrTo/cpcm/post.htm#14329Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:44:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14329dinosmSo, 'compared to' means something more like 'be similar to', while 'compare with' is an actual comparison being undertaken?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ErrorAndMistake/cprx/post.htm#14328Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:39:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14328dinosmThat is, a 'mistake' is more elaborate, more "sophisticated" (if you will) kind of error, while the latter is more superficial and perhaps usually denotes lesser importance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingTheWordProvide/cpvq/post.htm#14326Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:35:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14326dinosmI think 'with' is the most correct syntax for 'provide', as in: 'I provided him with a rope' (maybe he was going climbing ). I've seen and used 'for' myself in the following way: 'If you have children, you must provide for their well-being.' (without an object as in whom to provide with well-being)http://www.englishforums.com/English/BrochureTitle/cpwk/post.htm#14325Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:25:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14325dinosmIt sounds odd and I would say it can't stand like this. You'd have to use 'against' after 'proof', to say what the results are proof against (as this is the most correct preposition to go after 'proof'), as in: Our results are proof against scrutiny.http://www.englishforums.com/English/InsteadBasisBasingBased/cpjc/post.htm#14324Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:20:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14324dinosm'Basing on' sounds to me really unnatural, as I've never heard it nor used it myself. 'Based on' is the natural structure to use in this case. Perhaps instead of 'basing on' you could use 'counting on', though I'm not sure this is as formal-sounding as 'based on'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Nor/cpwh/post.htm#14323Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:17:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14323dinosmOr 'I like neither this nor that', or better perhaps 'I neither like this nor that'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichTheseCorrectEverybodyEveryone/2/wxr/Post.htm#14322Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:11:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:14322dinosmIt's a general 'feeling' about these words that prompts me to think that: - 'everybody' is more vague, referring to an undefined crowd - 'everything' is more specific, referring to a fixed set of people, more individually defined. Examples: -- Everybody has a birth certificate. (meaning the whole population of a country, or the world even) -- Everyone is here. (meaning all those we invited or expected to come) Surely even in these cases, most people might agree these two words are still interchangeable, but I feel more inclined to use one or the other according to meaning and context. Any more ideas?