http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3apaco2004&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:paco2004'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/APassageToHarvard/clmhq/post.htm#224692Thu, 11 May 2006 22:47:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224692paco2004Hi MrP Thank you for the quickest reply. I see. Thank you a lot. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/APassageToHarvard/clmhq/post.htmThu, 11 May 2006 22:38:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224688paco2004Hello guys I'm still stuck to reading Washington Post's article "A Passage to Harvard" , a story about a Harvard girl student who committed plagiarism in writing her teen-literature. This question is originally given to me by a Japanese learner of English, who is trying to read the article. The question is about how we should read the article's last sentence: And Viswanathan, perhaps, has learned a lesson that the admissions industrial complex does its best to obscure: There are more things to cry about than not getting into Harvard. What troubles us here is how to grammatically parse the phrase after the colon: "There are more things to cry about than getting into Harvard". Is the phrase working as the object of the verb...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichIsWhere/2/clkhv/Post.htm#224423Thu, 11 May 2006 04:03:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224423paco2004Thanks for the confirmation, Barb. I feel I now got the reason that you preferably use "which is where" in speech. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichIsWhere/clkhv/post.htm#224373Wed, 10 May 2006 23:26:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224373paco2004Grammar Geek wrote: The "which is where" makes the entire U.S. the location of the debate and keeps the comment parenthetical. If it were "in the U.S. where this debate is taking place" ( without a comma before "where") it could be seen as restrictive, specifying that there is some location in the U.S. in the midst of this debate, but it's not universally taking place across the U.S. Hello Barb Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I really appreciate it very much because I cannot find no dictionary, no grammar book, no web site that explains this collocation of "which is where". I understand you are saying that you use the collocation "which is where" to make it clear that the where-relative clause is used as a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichIsWhere/clkhv/post.htm#224131Wed, 10 May 2006 05:34:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224131paco2004Hello guys Thank you for the replies. I picked up this sentence from CNN.com online where two Congressmen are talking about the issue of human cloning. The sentence is actually spoken by Mr Dennis Kucinich from Cleveland. KUCINICH wrote: Well, you have other nations that, such as France and Germany, that have taken a position that is similar to what the U.S. Congress has enunciated. The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos. I take "about" here as "going on", and I don't have any doubt about the grammatical credibility of the sentence. What I...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichIsWhere/clkhv/post.htmWed, 10 May 2006 01:18:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224098paco2004Hello　guys I'm sorry I am always an asker, but could you help me? What I would like to know is the difference in the usage and the meaning between the simple "where" and "which is where". (EX) The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos. Do you find it odd if I change "which is where" here into simple "where"? If simple "where" is OK, why do you think the writer uses "which is where" instead of "where"? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LifeThatIs/clkzj/post.htm#224092Wed, 10 May 2006 00:46:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224092paco2004MrPedantic wrote: Well, it does seem to be a fairly common trick, in some kinds of journalism: putting your relative pronoun in one paragraph, and its referent in another. MrP Thank you, again! I see. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LifeThatIs/clkzj/post.htm#224087Wed, 10 May 2006 00:26:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224087paco2004MrPedantic wrote: I would read "Life" as a restatement of the preceding "life", and "that" as a defining relative pronoun: "...weeping inconsolably and trying to look at life ahead – life that is more engaging, more nuanced and ultimately more disturbing than art, in this case." Hello　MrP Thank you for the opinion. So I feel the writing style here is of abnormally elaborate rhetoric. Am I right? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LifeThatIs/clkzj/post.htm#224074Tue, 09 May 2006 23:04:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224074paco2004Marius Hancu wrote: Life which is more engaging, more nuanced, etc Hi, Marius Thanks for the quick reply. Do you mean this sentence is made up of only a single noun modified by a clause? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LifeThatIs/clkzj/post.htmTue, 09 May 2006 21:46:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:224069paco2004Hello guys I'm in trouble with a sentence in Washington Post's article "A Passage to Harvard" . The sentence is : " Life that is , in this case, more engaging, more nuanced and ultimately more disturbing than art. " How should I interpret this "life that is"? Is the "that" a relative? Or should I interpret the phrase is made by fronting "life" in "that is life"? I would to like hear your opinions. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GerundVsPresentParticiple/2/bmzhr/Post.htm#222334Thu, 04 May 2006 07:53:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:222334paco2004Hello CJ I don't like to argue against a great guru like you, but I agree with Riglos about this issue. I understand "walking stick" is "stick for the purpose of walking" or "stick to be used in walking". So I take this "walking" as a gerund and I parse "walking stick" as a noun-noun phrase just like "lacrosse stick" is a noun-noun phrase. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DumpDesign/clccq/post.htm#221740Tue, 02 May 2006 07:34:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:221740paco2004Hello Clive I guess Ben wanted to mean "sloppy projects" rather than "designing waste dumps" by "dump design". How about "No amount of taxpayers' money should be spent on sloppy projects"? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Yesterday/ckqcc/post.htm#220863Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:29:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220863paco2004I think "the end of the year" commonly means "New Year's Eve". So I find it odd that pupils say good bye to one another on New Year's Eve. I might say like "Yesterday was the last day of the school year, and the pupils said good bye to one another." pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisSentenceCorrect/ckqbg/post.htm#220858Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:59:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220858paco2004MyShirley wrote: Yesterday, I bought a lot of food in the supermarket for this whole week. Is this sentence correct? "I bought a lot of food for this whole week" means "I bought a lot of food every day this week". So I think the sentence should be like "Yesterday, I bought a lot of food in the supermarket for all the meals of this week". pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OmittingPastParticiples/ckplg/post.htm#220720Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:08:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220720paco2004Hello StarS The three things you asked about are different each other from the standpoint of grammar. (1)"The person (who is) seated in front of me keeps turning back." This kind of relative-clause contraction is called "WHIZ deletion" in a grammatical term. "WHIZ deletion" is very common in English, and many of words or phrases modifying a noun from behind can be understood as "WHIZ deletion". For example, let's take an example: "The church in the town is dedicated to St. Peter". Here "the church in the town" is a WHIZ deletion of "the church (which is) in the town". (2)"I don't want it (to be) repeated." "Want something to be done" is commonly contracted into "want something done". So "I want my shirt ironed" is more common...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichOneIsCorrect/ckxwj/post.htm#220508Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:53:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220508paco2004Davidrock65 wrote: A. How many months left for you to retire from the army? B. How many months for your lease to expire? Are those two sentences correct? They are wrong, because they have no finite verb and make no sense. By the way, you can say both: (1) How many months do you have until you retire from the army? (2) How many months do you have left until you retire from the army? If you think the person (='you') desires his retirement comes soon, choose #1. If you think he hates his retirement comes soon, choose #2. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThinkVsRecollect/ckxzx/post.htm#220431Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:51:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:220431paco2004Wwwdotcom wrote: I think the teacher was looking at it like a time based thing. You think of new stuff, like a baby's name, whereas if we already met and you forgot my name, you might try to remember it (not think it). However, going back to the initial question as I understand it, there is not much difference if any when using either word. Hello W3.com I was born as a native speaker of Japanese, and so I can guess why the teacher insisted "think" and "recollect" are opposite in the sense. Most of Japanese learners of English understand "think" is English counterpart of Japanese "kangaeru" whose principal meaning is "use the mind to make one's decision or judgment for some future event". On the other hand, "recollect" is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NumeralMore/cklmk/post.htm#219752Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:12:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:219752paco2004Clive wrote: Yes, definitely. Hi, Clive Thanks for the kind confirmation. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NumeralMore/cklmk/post.htm#219730Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:52:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:219730paco2004Clive wrote: My first reaction is to think that 'twenty dollars' seems like a more 'inseparable phrase'. I think of it almost like 'twenty-dollars'. I don't think of 'two hotdogs' in the same way. Perhaps the answer lies along these lines? Hello, Cilve Thank you! I've agonized over this question for three days, but now I have a feeling the solution is being arrived at owing to your suggestion. My problem was I took the construct as <numeral +more +noun +than>. I should have understood the generalized form is rather <quantifier +more +noun +than>. The quantifier for "hotdogs" is "two" (just a numeral). So we have to say like "She ate many hotdogs. She ate two more hotdogs than her brother". But, the quantifier for...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NumeralMore/cklmk/post.htmTue, 25 Apr 2006 09:20:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:219565paco2004Hello I have a question about the usage of "more" with a numeral. I guess "She ate two more hotdogs than her brother" is a more natural construct than "She ate two hotdogs more than her brother". But you would say "She paid twenty dollars more than she needed" rather than "She paid twenty more dollars than she needed". My question is : why do you use "numeral + more + noun + than" when the noun is "hotdogs" and why do you use "numeral + noun + more + than" when the noun is "dollars"? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ByFearOfLitigation/ckjxr/post.htm#219108Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:19:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:219108paco2004Starstuff wrote: "Instead, they have watched the system become deformed over the years by fear of litigation , by insurance costs, by rising competition, by billowing bureaucracy and even by improvements in technology that introduce new risks even as they reduce old ones." Why isn't it "by the fear of litigation" since "fear" is countable and restricted...Which one do you prefer? "Fear" is basically an uncountable noun, although "fears" is possible in certain phrases like "hopes and fears". We might say both "by fear of" and "by the fear of". Indeed, nearly a half of current English speakers online say "by fear of" and another half say "by the fear of". But it seems formerly the correct form was "by the fear of". The number of hits...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnotherQuestionAboutUsage-The/ckjdl/post.htm#218950Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:03:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218950paco2004Hello DavidR I use the term "self comparison" in the meaning that one compares a person or thing in one occasion with the same person or thing in another occasion. On the other hand, "relative comparison" is to compare a person or thing with another person or thing. Comparative (1) Jane is happier than Anna. (2) Jane is happier in her bed than elsewhere. Superlative (1) Jane is the happiest of all the three girls. (2) Jane is happiest in her bed. You are right that "most excellent" is a little weird in normal uses, but it is OK when "most" is used in the sense of "really", "absolutely", or like. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AnotherQuestionAboutUsage-The/ckjdl/post.htm#218920Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:05:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218920paco2004Davidrock65 wrote: I came across some articles in which they don't place THE before adj+est or most + adj. why? I was taught, however, that we should put THE before them. Could u please explain this to me and gimme some examples? (1) Superlative in self comparison. (EX) Lake Michigan is deepest near the southern end. (EX) She was sexiest when she was wearing only Chanel #5. (EX) Rate of sex disease in US is highest in developed world. (2) Superlative (most) as an intensifier "very". (EX) You are a most excellent singer song writer. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GoingExpressionCommon/2/ckhhp/Post.htm#218907Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:04:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218907paco2004I mean "in overwhelimingly frequent use" by "overwhelmingly frequently used". pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpWithClauseStructure/ckjcv/post.htm#218842Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:30:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218842paco2004Hello Margie I think your analysis is right. As "enjoy" is typically a transitive verb, we cannot parse "being an artist" as an adverbial participle clause. We should parse it rather as a gerundive clause, which is acting as an object of the verb "enjoy". Because "He enjoys being an artist" is "He enjoys (the fact) that he is an artist", "an artist" should be semantically equal to the subject "He" in the main clause. However, I am not sure whether we can call it a subject complement. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DefiniteArticleEvidence/ckwdp/post.htm#218809Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:10:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218809paco2004Starstuff wrote: "I like the teachers of my school". "They have (no the?) evidence of human rights abuses". Why isn't "evidence" also treated as a definite group to which is being referred? (like the teachers of my school) It's "the evidence of human rights abuses" but not "the evidence of something else.", and I always try to add "the" to a noun that has a reference to it. In this case, "my school" refers to "teachers", and "human rights abuses" refers to "evidence", no? Is it just like "They have the keys to those doors." Hello Starstuff What is your first language? Mine is Japanese, and with the sense of the Japanese language, I too feel as if we should put " the " before " evidence of " in such a sentence " We now have evidence...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GoingExpressionCommon/2/ckhhp/Post.htm#218800Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:16:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218800paco2004There are some examples in which the speaker seems to be using "S will be going to V" in implicature of "future in future". (EX) Kirk and I are traveling to China tomorrow morning. We will be going to learn about nursing in China with an opportunity to develop a training program for Chinese nurses to come here for some advanced training. . However, "S will be going to V" is used mostly in a context that the subject (S) moves to some place prior to doing the activity indicated by the verbal phrase (V). The verbs overwhelmingly frequently used for the V of this construct are "see (someone)" and "visit (someone)". pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SoAndSoThat/ckglh/post.htm#218560Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:51:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218560paco2004Yunus wrote: thanks geek. for instance i have an example about this. I graduated of Istanbul University. I have just been a doctor so that/so i can earn much money. which one is the best choice that should i choose. "So (that)" has two usages: "so that + a purpose" and "so that + a result". (EX-1) I want to be a medical doctor so (that) I can make a lot of money. (EX-2) He is a medical doctor so (that) he is making a lot of money. Personally I'm distinguishing them as follows. (EX-1) I want to be a medical doctor so I can make a lot of money. (EX-2) He is a medical doctor , so he is making a lot of money. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/GoingExpressionCommon/ckhhp/post.htm#218537Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:15:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218537paco2004Soylista wrote: I am confused with this expression, " will be going to + Vb ". eg. I will be going to visit Aunt Carol tomorrow. To me, this expression is sort of redundant. Why do you need to use both "will" and "be+going to"? I somewhat understand the differences between future meaning expressions; "be+going to", "be ~ing", "will" and "will be ~ing" but I've got confused since I heard this "will be going to ~". Is this expression common to use? Is there any specific meaning on this? What kind of occasion or circumstances should I use this expression? Stanford Linguistics/Grammaticalization of "Be Going To " The full semanticization and grammaticalization of "be going to" is evidenced when the following subject and/or the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveMood/ckgvg/post.htm#218381Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:07:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218381paco2004Candy wrote: Could you please check whether the following sentences are correct? A. I wouldn't do it if the sun were to rise in the west. B. I wouldn't do it if the sun rose in the west. If the sun rose in the west every morning, I would get younger day by day. If the sun were to rise in the west in 2008, the Beijing Olympic would be aborted. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpInvertedSentence/ckhrk/post.htm#218234Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:17:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218234paco2004Anonymous wrote: Only as a last resort should you attempt to create new materials. My question is why "should" is ahead of "you" in this sentence. Thanks a lot! This is a kind of negative inversion. "Only" is a quasi negative adverb along with "barely", "rarely", "scarcely", "seldom", "little", etc., and its heading often triggers a subject-verb inversion. (EX) Only after he was warned, did he start behaving like a gentleman. (EX) Only when I got here, did I notice your question was waiting for an answer. (EX) Only under such extreme conditions could I show what I was capable of. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpMe/ckgpw/post.htm#218193Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:40:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218193paco2004Visit HERE .http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceCheckerEasyEnglish/3/bwxnx/Post.htm#218189Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:12:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:218189paco2004Anonymous wrote: can anyone tell which of the following sentence is correct. 1). kindly find attached the photos. 2). kinldy find the attached photos. I have a doubt whether the first sentence is correct or not. Both of "kindly find the attached X" and "kindly find attached the X" are rather new to me. "please find attached (PFA) the X" is a collocation quite familiar to me. People are using the phrase to mean "the X is attached to this e-mail". pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TheWordInformation/ckzpp/post.htm#217932Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:57:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:217932paco2004You can get many informations in France or in Spain, but you can get only information in Britain and in the United States. Why? I don't know. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FruitS/ckvmz/post.htm#217930Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:51:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:217930paco2004Anonymous wrote: Thank you very much for the picture and for your time, Paco. Did you mean that "coffee fruits" is correct? Thanks. Yes. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FruitS/ckvmz/post.htm#217562Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:31:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:217562paco2004I think "coffee fruits" are countable . pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Articles/ckvmh/post.htm#217554Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:06:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:217554paco20041. "Stare" or "stare at " requires an object, i.e., something or someone. 2. "At night" is "during an arbitrary night". "At the night" is not idiomatic. (EX) We often sat in the garden at night and stared (at) each other. (EX) That night we sat in the garden and stared at the night sky. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/OnTheWeeks/ckvlv/post.htm#217544Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:217544paco2004"On the weeks" is not "every week" but "on certain specified weeks". (EX) There would be four 50-minute exams on the weeks listed in the syllabus. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PlaceLivePlaceLive/qkbq/post.htm#216954Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:21:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216954paco2004Hello Chang 1. I have to find a room to sleep. 2. I have to find a room to sleep in. I'll choose #2 because "a room to sleep in" is kind of a fixed noun phrase. If I happened to find the sentence #1 somewhere, I would read it as "I have to find a room in order to sleep", but it sounds somewhat weird to me. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PastModals/2/cjnlw/Post.htm#216612Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:27:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216612paco2004Lcchang wrote: It seems to me that a present auxiliary "may" is used for the past event. That has confused me for a while. She may have forgotten our invitation. Other than being used for degrees of certainty for the events that was happened in the past, can "may" also be used for opinions and advice? You may have reminded him of the time. And last, can we consider both situations kind of conditional sentences? She may have forgotten our invitation. (It was possible for her to leave earlier, but actually she didn't leave earlier.) You may have reminded him of the time. (In fact I didn't remind him of the time.) Hello Chang I think we cannot use "may have done" in the context the speaker knows the said event...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PastModals/2/cjnlw/Post.htm#216365Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:38:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216365paco2004Lcchang wrote: Does the past modals uesd here mean something happened in the past? If it is true, then why can "may" be used here since it is a present modal? Can we consider all the sentences above to be conditoinal sentences because they all look like in past perfect tense here? Appendix In the case of the modals belonging to "the possibility", the event the speaker think about is a 'counter-fact' (unrealized) past event, when <modal + have + V> is used. (EX) He could have left earlier. =I think it was possible for him to leave earlier, but actually he didn't leave earlier. (EX) He shouldn't have stayed so late. =I think it was better for him not to stay so late, but actually he stayed so late. (EX) He...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PastModals/cjnlw/post.htm#216360Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:19:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216360paco2004Modals are auxiliary verbs to express in what way or how the speaker thinks NOW about some event. (1) When the event is the one that is happening now or in future, you use the form <modal+V>. (EX) Mr. Chang speaks good English. He must study English hard now. He must study English hard now. = I think it is highly probable that he studies English hard now. (2) When the event is the one that happened in the past, you use the form <modal+have+V-ed>. (EX) Mr. Chang speaks good English. He must have studied English hard in the past. He must have studied English hard in the past. = I think it is highly probable that he studied/(has studied) English hard in the past. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PassessiveS/cjqnv/post.htm#216238Sun, 16 Apr 2006 02:49:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216238paco2004Anonymous wrote: I have some confusions regarding the use of "passessive s". When do we have to use it? For example, we use it in the following case: Student's name but we say: Computer name. Is there any general rule here? A computer name is defined as a name given to a computer to be identified on a particular network. You can understand "computer name" is a kind of common noun, i.e., "computer-name". So you can say like "My computer's computer name is PA-CO-2004", but casually people would say like "My computer's name is PA-CO-2004". To my guess, what you want to know is not like this kind of simple stuff. Maybe you want to know in what case we have to use a possessive form of a noun as an attributive modifier to a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceTransformation04/cjxxm/post.htm#216177Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:46:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216177paco2004Clive wrote: Hi, 6. He invited Mitch to come sweat with him at his health club. He suggested : “ Let's go sweat at my health club, Mitch .” Sorry, I forgot to delete 'with me'. Yhanks Paco. Best wishes, Clive Thanks for the confirmation, Clive. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PastModals/cjnlw/post.htm#216174Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:43:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216174paco2004Lcchang wrote: Can any teacher help, please? Hello Chang I guess you are asking rather the semantic difference(s) between "possible" and "probable". Right? I found a good site online to explain this. Here they say like below. Christianlogic.com wrote: Difference between Possible and Probable All of us can confuse these important ideas: (1) what is impossible, (2) what is possible, and (3) what is probable. Let’s explain the difference. (1). Something is "impossible" if there is no way that it could be true. (EX) Jack realized he'd made a revolutionary discovery. When you add two plus three underwater, you always come up with seven. Every math textbook must be rewritten! (2). Something is "possible" if there is a chance...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ItsIVsItsMe/cjlmz/post.htm#216149Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:41:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216149paco2004HMLithman wrote: It should be noted that the use of a nominative complement ("It is I") is by no means universal in other languages. For example, French-speakers say "c'est moi" (it's me) not "c'est je". "C'est moi". This "moi" is not necessarily an equivalent to English "me". "Moi" (I, me), "toi" (you, you), "lui" (he, him), "elle" (she, her), "soi" (it, it), "nous" (we, us), "vous" (you, you), "eux" (they, them), "elles" (they, them) are called "disjunctive pronoun" and they work sometimes as nominative and sometimes as objective. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceTransformation04/cjxxm/post.htm#216143Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:26:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216143paco2004Hela wrote: 6. He invited Mitch to come sweat with him at his health club. He suggested : “Will you come sweat with me at my health club, Mitch?” Clive wrote: 6. He invited Mitch to come sweat with him at his health club. He suggested : “ Let's go sweat with me at my health club, Mitch .” Hi, Clive "Let's go do something with me" is a construction new to me. Is it common usage? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoOrDoesAnyCountables/cjqdq/post.htm#216109Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:56:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216109paco2004My grammar book and one of my E-J dictionaries say as follows: (EX) Does/Do any of the members agree with you? (EX) None of the books was/were placed on the shelves. Prescriptive grammars have tended to insist on the singular verb, but notional agreement or the proximity principle invites a plural verb, which tends to be more frequently used and is generally accepted even in formal usages. - In New York Times com - "Do any of them ….?" : 10 uses. "Does any of them …?" : 0 uses. - In ac.uk domains - "Do any of them …?" : about 50 uses. "Does any of them …?" : 3 uses. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TenseRelatedToAlready/cjqrq/post.htm#216093Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:19:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:216093paco2004Hello "Already" is "by this/that time". It is most often used with the perfect tenses. But this does not mean its use with other tense is wrong. Actually, the original sense of "already" was "all ready" "fully in a state of preparation". So it can be used with anything that implies a state. (EX) Her body shows she is already a woman. (EX) Iraq already looks ominously like Vietnam. (EX) It's 7:00 am, but he is already at work. (EX) My 5-year old son is already using a computer. As to your quiz's answer, I too think C is also a right answer, and "Mick was already there to get on the air" is also possible. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommasInASeries/2/cjnjx/Post.htm#215688Sat, 15 Apr 2006 03:37:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:215688paco2004The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma) is the comma used immediately before a conjunction (such as "and" or "or") in a list of three or more items. The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not. The main justification for the serial comma is to reduce ambiguity, although both its absence and its presence can, in fact, produce it. The use or omission of the serial comma also produces different rhythms in a sentence. The terms "Oxford comma" and "Harvard comma" come from Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press, where use of the serial comma is the house style. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, most authorities on...