| Last month | Last 3 months | All time | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed lessons | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Attendance rate | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Thank you both, Charles and Andrew!
To Andrew:
Your answer is very clarifying. So means is another group noun just like committee, government, etc., which can be treated either as sigular or plural. I think The American Heritage Dictionary's note on means accounts majorly for the Americans' preference to treat group nouns ususally as sigular, while British authors like Mr Nigel Buxton are more likely to treat them as plural. Am I right on that?
To Charles:
Are you speaking of caravans or trailers, which can be used not only as tools of transportation but also accommadation and refreshment in a long journey and they are more than one method or strategy to arrive at or escape from the holiday resort?
0 votedNovember 25, 20170- Why is 'means' plural here
This is an excerpt from the essay The Great Escape by Nigel Buxton:
The contemporary phenomenon of motor-car worship is to be explained not least by the sense of independence and freedom that ownership entails. To this pleasure camping gives an exquisite refinement.
From one’s own front door to home or foreign hills or sands and back again, everything is to hand. Not only are the means of arriving at the holiday paradise entirely within one’s own command and keeping, but the means of escape from holiday hell (if the beach proves too crowded, the local weather too inclement) are there, outside—or, as likely, part of—the tent.According to American Heritage Dictionary's usage note on means:In the sense of “a way to an end” means may be treated as either a singular or plural. It is singular when referring to a particular strategy or method. It is plural when it refers to a group of strategies ormethods.In Mr Buxton's essay, the motor-car is referred to as the means to arrive at or escape from holiday resorts. So I understand this is just one particular means, but why he uses the word are here confuses me. Could you please share your opinions on the use of are here?November 25, 201742 Have you any bananas?
You haven't any bananas.
Grammar books say that these are formal British English constructions when the word have has the static meaning, ie. possesion , but these constructions have grown a bit of old-fashioned.
And I have read essays or books written by British authors half a century ago titled like 'Mary had a Little Lamb' rather than 'Mary Had a Little Lamb', which makes me wonder if in the past the British people liked to treat have when it means possesion like an auxiliary verb syntactically even if it is a main verb semantically?
0 votedNovember 18, 20170Thank you so much! Your answer is very clarifying!
And thank you too, Peachey!
To Peachey:
The grammar books I have read say that though dangling modifiers are not in strict accordance with grammar rules, they are somewhat tolerable provided the subjects they imply are not to cause confusion, and many renowned writers and scholars do occasionally use them.
0 votedNovember 17, 20170Thank you for your very detailed elucidation, Beni!
And thank you too, Peachey!
When I first read the sentence, I thought where appropriate means where it is appropriate. And here I thought that the omitted it means the situation, ie. 'where the situation is appropriate', or this it is what some grammarians would call a dummy it. And this omitted 'it' is different from the subject of the main clause 'Preference shall be given'. That is what makes me think that it looks like a dangling structure.
0 votedNovember 17, 20170- 'Where appropriate': A dangling modifier, or a reduced clause?
Hello, evryone
This is a sentence taken from the EU Parliament's briefing on the protection from dumped and subsidised imports, which is issued on the official EU Parliamentary website—
Parliament's amendments as regards compliance with social and environmental standards will be taken into account, to the extent that when an appropriate representative country has to be chosen to construct undistorted costs and prices, ‘preference shall be given, where appropriate, to countries with an adequate level of social and environmental protection' .
Is where appropriate in this sentence a reduced clause or a dangling modifier?
Would you please share your opinions?
November 17, 201780 - Can 'instead of' be followed by a prepositional phrase? I find in the dictionary that 'instead' is an adverb while 'instead of' is an preposition. Grammar books say that prepositions should be followed by noun phrases, pronouns, or gerunds. However the following excerpt puzzles me, which is from a passage written by L. G. Alexander, a prominent British educator in teaching English: All at once it was night. The track was grassy and even in daylight showed up hardly at all against the moor, so it was difficult to keep on it now. If only I had been a smoker with matches always to hand, or if my torch had been in my pocket [*instead of in the suitcase,*] I could have walked with more assurance. The part I bracket is where I want your attention. Perhaps I would say 'instead of the suitcase', but is 'instead of in the suitcase' proper grammar-wise?November 14, 201740
- Relative clause or coordinative clause? Could you please help me analyse these two sentences? The first one is from the essay Finding Fossil Man by Robin Place— These legends are useful because they can tell us something about migrations of people who lived long ago, but none could write down what they did. Is "none could write down what they did" a relative clause or coordinate clause? The second one is from The French Foreign Legion by Edgar O'Ballance— For some time Paris had been swarming with countless other discharged foreign soldiers who had served in the French army at various times under the Empire and the Republic, many of whom were in needy circumstances and open to suggestion, whilst others were openly looking for trouble and always ready to take part in any disturbance. Is "whilst others were openly looking for trouble and always ready to take part in any disturbance" a relative clause or coordinate clause? Would you please share your ideas?Another one from The Story of the French Foreign Legion: The Royal Ordinance decreed that there should be a legion formed of foreigners for service outside France, which was to be called the ‘Foreign Legion’ and it was to be part of the French army and under the control of the War Minister. 'And it was to be part of the French army and under the control of the War Minister' follows immediately, even without a comma, a preceding non-restrictive relative clause 'which was to be called the "Foreign Legion"'. Is it proper grammar-wise to join two different sorts of clauses, like a relative clause and a coordinate clause in this way?November 10, 201720
