📚｜english-questions

[verbal heron]

Which of the following sentences is/are correct?
"The jailer was jailed for his strangling a prisoner under the guise of a jest"
"The jailer was jailed for strangling a prisoner under the guise of a jest"

[boreal ingot]

I think both are

[verbal heron]

How is "for his strangling" correct?

[boreal ingot]

yea

formal

[bitter hill]

I mean they're both gerunds, no? One just has an added determiner

The jailer was jailed for [X].

[boreal ingot]

but correct

[boreal ingot]

Unrelated, but would you add 'of'?

in the first 'of' after 'strangling' sounds wrong to me

but in the second it sounds better to me

[bitter hill]

I agree

[boreal ingot]

idk if it's just me or what so wanted to get another opinion

[bitter hill]

Or wait

[boreal ingot]

wait I got it the other way around

[bitter hill]

Yeah

[boreal ingot]

lmao

for his strangling of a
vs
for strangling a

wonder why it sounds outright wrong to use 'of' in the second

maybe it isn't

who knows

[bitter hill]

Found something relevant

[boreal ingot]

oh interesting

thank you

[alpine gyro]

Is b considered a great choice here?

[cloud badge]

You'd need to add 'of' to that. 'His strangling of a prisoner'. If you did that, both options would be correct.

[bitter hill]

Found sumn more relevant

[boreal ingot]

Oh, that's a lot of info

ngl hard to comprehend

[boreal ingot]

So here, this would be case three, right?

I had no hand in his going missing

meaning it could work as either

[steady summit]

SCELUUUUUUUU

You still alive

[bitter hill]

I believe so

[boreal ingot]

Omggg Numbersssss

It's been ages

[boreal ingot]

thank youu

[steady summit]

Indeed its been ages, how are you doing?

[boreal ingot]

im wellll

how are you

why brings you here lol

[steady summit]

Doing fine thanks, came here for no reason at all honestly 🤣

Was just a coincidence that i chanced upon you

[boreal ingot]

yeee

thas cool

[steady summit]

Also didn’t expect to see you here, how have you been finding this server?

[boreal ingot]

not bad

Ppl made it sound worse than it actually is lol

[steady summit]

No sloth, zoomie, vic and all the others😔

[boreal ingot]

but the politics vc is awful lol

[steady summit]

Why?💀

[steady summit]

I never vc and you know that🤣

[boreal ingot]

Idk they always made it sound like the dumping ground, the cesspool of Discord's English learning communities

especially sam (you might know him as stereo)

[steady summit]

That’s crazy💀

[steady summit]

Stereodash?

Why is it viewed like that tho💀

[boreal ingot]

no idea

[steady summit]

Like its not even that bad honestly speaking

[boreal ingot]

yea it isn'tt

[steady summit]

Well i will go into hibernation once more, it was nice seeing you here tho

[boreal ingot]

night nightt

[verbal heron]

Is "to strangle of someone/something" a phrasal verb?

[cloud badge]

It's not 'to strangle of' its 'the strangling of' like 'the act of'

[bitter hill]

If you use 'his/the strangling of...', strangling is a noun. The gerund in your original example

The jailer was jailed for (his) strangling a prisoner...
Is verbal

[acoustic geyser]

Is imperative form rude?

How do I make it less-rude?

[sweet breach]

what is the best answer ?

[tidal lily]

C

[tawdry stump]

C

Ah, the intricate dance of matrimonial discourse! When my dear wife engages in her relentless litany of grievances, it often feels as though she is surreptitiously belittling me. Rather than supporting me—which would entail bolstering my endeavors with encouragement—or advising me in a constructive manner replete with sagacious counsel, she opts for a more, shall we say, diminutive approach.

Certainly, she isn't applauding me, for there is a conspicuous absence of ovations or laudatory remarks. Instead, her incessant nagging manifests as a subtle erosion of my self-esteem, akin to water wearing away at a stone. The persistent critiques and admonishments make me feel trivialized, as if my contributions are perpetually inadequate.

In this context, belittling is the most apropos choice. It encapsulates the sensation of being disparaged or devalued through constant criticism. While nagging may occasionally stem from a place of concern, its execution often leaves the recipient feeling undermined rather than uplifted.

[sweet breach]

thanks a lot

[tawdry stump]

But of course, consider it a mere trifle in the grand scheme of things.

[sweet breach]

can i ask you this question related to what English grammar because i want to understand it

[tidal lily]

Why is this question unnecessarily complicated? Lol
Watch would have done the work.
B) is the correct option and they are using infinite verbs here

Correct me if I'm wrong here. It's forcing me to self doubt 😂

[crimson vortex]

Yeah, B) seems like the correct option, however, in real life conversations it sounds very unnatural

Watch would be perfect

[crimson vortex]

Hello. Did you come up with whole this text yourself? I don't understand even the third of it. Even so, you have the beginner role.

[crimson vortex]

Your vocabulary is very oowerful

[rapid bison]

powerfully empty, like that which was seen in question 11 😭

[tawdry stump]

The correct choice is a. have seen.

In my view, Linda's statement "would like to have seen that movie" employs the perfect infinitive 'have seen' to gracefully convey her regret over not having seen the movie. The other options fail to align with this sentiment:
'Be seeing' suggests an ongoing action, which doesn't suit an expression of past regret.
'Had seen' is the past perfect tense but is improperly used after 'would like to'.
'Be seen' implies that Linda desires to be observed, perhaps by paparazzi, which is an entirely different scenario!

[tawdry stump]

No worries at all! I merely embarked on an epic quest through my dictionary, assembling words piece by piece like a linguistic jigsaw puzzle. Then, I summoned the mighty powers of Google Translate to craft the grand finale!

[crimson vortex]

So, you intentionally challenge yourself to use as much advanced vocabulary as you can?

[tawdry stump]

To delve deeper, let's explore the nuances of have, be, -ing, had, and the pivotal word 'seen' in this context.

Have:
'Have' is our reliable auxiliary verb used to form perfect tenses. In this instance, it combines with 'seen' to create the perfect infinitive 'to have seen'.
It enables Linda to express a wish or regret about something that did not occur in the past.
Imagine Linda lamenting, "I wish I had had the pleasure to have seen that movie." Here, 'have' helps articulate her unfulfilled desire.

Be:
'Be' is the base form of the verb 'to be', used here to form the continuous infinitive when paired with a present participle (a verb ending in '-ing').
In option b. be seeing, it implies an action that is ongoing or in progress.
Unless Linda possesses the extraordinary ability to simultaneously watch the movie while expressing her wish, 'be seeing' isn't quite appropriate.

-ing:
'-ing' is the suffix used to form the present participle of verbs.
In 'seeing', it indicates an action that is currently happening or ongoing.
While delightful for expressing continuous actions (e.g., "I am seeing a movie"), it doesn't capture Linda's regret about a past event.

Had:
'Had' is the past tense of 'have' and is used to form the past perfect tense when combined with a past participle (e.g., 'had seen').
However, saying "would like to had seen" is a grammatical misstep—akin to wearing sneakers with an evening gown.
After "would like to," we need the base form or the perfect infinitive, not the past perfect tense.

Seen:
'Seen' is the past participle of the verb 'see'.
It joins forces with auxiliary verbs like 'have' or 'had' to form perfect tenses.
In 'have seen', it helps Linda express her unfulfilled desire to have experienced the movie in the past.

[crimson vortex]

By the way, are you advancing in studying Japanese? Or only English so far?

[tawdry stump]

Absolutely not! My vocabulary just has a flair for the dramatic.

[tawdry stump]

Well, my Japanese skills are currently at the level of knowing how to say 'sushi' and 'konnichiwa'—so unless ordering sushi counts as fluency, I'm definitely a beginner! I'm focusing on taming the wild beast that is the English language for now. Maybe once I've conquered English, I'll embark on the adventure of learning Japanese!

[rapid bison]

🍵
the English language is a formidable beast.
however, it is only ranked as a miniboss. there are well-documented weaknesses and vulnerabilities you could spot and take advantage of.

[crimson vortex]

Yeah, some other languages like german or even russian are way harder than english

[crimson vortex]

Understandable. However, if you are interested anime, you can join world's biggest anime server on discord Anime Soul. Personally, i often visit it, mainly for vc

[tawdry stump]

Thanks for the recommendation! While my anime knowledge is about as deep as a kiddie pool—I've only seen a few episodes here and there—I might just drop by and see what all the fuss is about. Who knows, maybe I'll become an overnight anime enthusiast! I'll check out Anime Soul and see if it sparks my interest. Appreciate the tip!

[tawdry stump]

Ah, if the English language is indeed a formidable beast ranked merely as a miniboss, then I shall relish the challenge with utmost enthusiasm! Clad in the armor of wit and wielding the sword of eloquence, I will keenly exploit its well-documented weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Navigating the labyrinth of grammar and untangling the webs of vocabulary, I aspire to conquer this beast with grace and humor. Onward I march, toward the lofty pinnacle of linguistic mastery!

Duolingo proclaims: Should you continue to neglect your studies, I shall be obliged to personally intervene to rekindle your thirst for knowledge. I beseech you not to squander your precious time; strive for self-improvement and diligence.
or

[sly pier]

What is it with the ChatGPT use in this channel 💀

[verbal heron]

Has it been used like ‘the act of strangling someone’?

[verbal heron]

I am really poor with this 💀, what is verbal gerund? Isn't gerund such a noun with the addition of -ing preceding by the verb?

[verbal heron]

Either they are a literary scholar or 💀

[hoary lichen]

on god

[hoary lichen]

Yes

but “the act of” means it was an intentional action whereas “the strangling of” has no such indicative manner

[verbal heron]

But one always strangles someone 'deliberately'

[hoary lichen]

yes and that’s what the first is saying

the second mentions no such ACT of strangling, just a strangling

it puts less emphasis on the act which could be interpreted as not being purposeful

or premeditated

[verbal heron]

I haven't got it, sorry

[hoary lichen]

when you say “the act of” strangling, the emphasis is on the process or action itself, focusing more on the intention because it highlights the conscious engagement. hence why i feel it’s more premeditated.

on the other hand, “the strangling of” is more passive and focuses on the event or result rather than the process. it doesn’t imply intent as strongly, leaving it vague and more general

[acoustic geyser]

Is imperative form rude?

[green goblet]

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=DQSIkWdsW0yxEjajBLZtrQAAAAAAAAAAAAN__m9OOYRUOVdGMjNIQVcyS0xRMlNKRjdESE5IVTdORS4u

I don't know where else to ask

[serene plinth]

Not necessarily, depends on the sentence and context

Requests are imperative too

[dry estuary]

I'm wondering about the difference between "Provide" and "Supply", can anyone help me?

I appreciate your help 😄

[dry estuary]

Oh, and also the difference between "Restrictive", "Repressive, and "Prohibitive" too..

[bitter hill]

A gerund phrase functions as a noun but can still behave as a verb internally if that makes sense

[verbal heron]

alright, thanks

[verbal heron]

Ah, alright; I think there exists subtle difference between the two in that case, because strangling cannot occur by chance

[acoustic geyser]

Whats different?

The duty of the janitor = the janitor's duty

[hoary lichen]

to me theres nothing gramatically different

the second would flow better while and first is less possessive

[bitter hill]

Probably more emphasis on the duty itself for the first one

But there tends to be a preference for the possessive 's with people

[verbal heron]

To remove wordiness?

[soft lantern]

Hi everyone! I have a small question
What would be a formal way to say "you too"?

[acoustic geyser]

Also of can be use to talk about a part of something
Like:
People of London?
We just talk about Londoners and not the city itself.

[gaunt mango]

“You as well”

[soft lantern]

Thank you very much (:

[cloud badge]

'And the same to you' or 'i wish the same for you' is also good

[soft lantern]

Great, thank you!

[verbal heron]

What if the setting is somewhat different, and where one says, "you are too selfish", and another says, "you too" 🙂, given that the setting is overly informal

[cloud badge]

'You are, as well.' 'I feel the same way about you' 'perhaps you should consider your own selfishness before accusing others' or even 'it takes one to know one, as they say ;) ' that's less formal but also less serious so it could be a better way to straight up call out someone you work with or something without making them too upset.

[verbal heron]

Alright, thanks; and what if it is intended to lessen the severity of the front person's angst?

[cloud badge]

Hm, can you give an example or somethin? Or clarify a little more

[verbal heron]

But what needs to be exemplified?

[cloud badge]

The situation i guess?

[verbal heron]

I hope I won't remain inarticulate 💀

[verbal heron]

But I'll try to provide more background

[cloud badge]

Hm, im not sure how i can use 'you too' with that tbh

[jagged dome]

What situations should include "u too"?

[cloud badge]

Maybe saying 'i hope you won't, either' ?

[jagged dome]

• Happy holiday
• You, too

It is possible scenario?

[verbal heron]

What did the first person (say x) threaten to or insult to do, that the other one would instruct mr.x not to do?

[verbal heron]

That's pretty normal

[cloud badge]

Yup, just one tiny thing, usually people say 'holidayS' or, if theyre only talking about one specific holiday, they call that holiday by its name. Like 'happy holidays' or 'happy hunukkah' or, usually for Christmas, people use merry instead of happy with 'merry Christmas'

[cloud badge]

The first person said 'i hope i wont remain inarticulate' if you want to say 'you too' to that, since it's negative, youd say 'i hope you will not either'

[jagged dome]

Thanks for the revision. I did know a minor thing from you guys

[verbal heron]

'I hope I won't remain inarticulate' was my line. 💀 it's because wonder whether I will be able to articulate my thoughts

[cloud badge]

oh haha oops, well yeah if you can give a situation where this might happen i can help, otherwise im not sure

[boreal ingot]

What

[acoustic geyser]

Hey

Whats different between although, but and however?

[runic basin]

A layer decorates a service, transforming either the request or response

With the , comma it implies that layer is the one transforming

but if we remove the comma

A layer decorates a service transforming either the request or response

does it then not imply that the layer is decorating a service that is transforming ..

@cloud badge @verbal heron

[cloud badge]

no, it doesnt, the sentence just doesnt flow nicely. Youd have to have it say 'a transforming service' instead to get the second meaning.

[whole anvil]

When should I use the word "in" and the word "into"?

[runic basin]

oh ye ur right

[tidal lily]

Brief explanation -

In for already inside. a still state ?

Into : the process/action of getting inside. An action being performed?

Learning prepositions for non-natives is such a pain in the a$$

I got a firm grip of it by delving deep into the media and entertainment resources.

[whole anvil]

Ok, thanks

[boreal ingot]

Because you made me kill her, I have been having nightamres nightly since then.

Is this correct?

[flat rune]

what is the difference between : it appears they have returned because holidays are finished. It seems they have returned because holidays are finished.

[compact elbow]

To be fair, they sound to me like synonyms

I might be wrong but the subtle difference is that by using "seem" it may give the idea that this is just your opinion and not necessarily something evident or which they told you (sb please correct me if I'm wrong)

[flat rune]

ok

ty tho

[flat rune]

Hello evryone!
Guys, can anyone help me with which word can replace "me neither"?

[bitter hill]

Neither [auxiliary] I

[hoary lichen]

Same effect

[hoary lichen]

It works but isn’t the greatest way if you want it to flow

Ever since you made me kill her, I have been having nightmares every night

[flat rune]

ty

What about precious and valuable

[hoary lichen]

“I been having nightmares nightly since then” has just a bit less clarity

[hoary lichen]

Essentially the same thing, just means whatever’s […] has monetary or personal sentiment

But precious is subtly more pristine, like you’d say for jewels and valuable is more generic, like you’d say for a car

It’s interchangeable but they have their tiny tiny differences

Precious also tends to be more personally sentimental and valuable is more often than not to do with the monetary worth

[bitter hill]

Yes because the lack of a comma makes it seem like a restrictive modifier for 'a service'

[flat rune]

ty

[hoary lichen]

However contrasts two sentences or clauses

Although contrasts two parts of a single clause

Correct usages:

We decided to go for a walk, although it was raining.
It was raining; however, we decided to go for a walk.
Incorrect usages:
Although it was raining. We decided to go on a walk.
It was raining, however we decided to go on a walk.

[boreal ingot]

alright

I was only asking abt correctness tbh

[hoary lichen]

On that note it’s fine

[boreal ingot]

I wasn't sure if I can say 'Because you made me kill her' then also say 'since then'

[hoary lichen]

Well the since then is just referring to the first clause so yea it works

[boreal ingot]

thanks

---

... though I know him to truly be a virtuoso of the guns, I would not have possibly considered him as the optimal choice, no less thought him likely to agree to such a thing.

1. Is this sentence incorrect? I'm talking about the 'no less' part specifically. I believe it's fine to use 'no less' like that, but someone pointed it out to me (they didn't explicitly call it a mistake, but they did say to change it)

... as I conversed with him, it hadn't so much as crossed my mind to speak to him of the poster, despite the subject matter having been that he was struggling to find a gig to take on for some much-needed cash.

1. Is this incorrect? Someone told me that the 'despite ...' didn't make sense, like the contrast is missing, but I believe it works (the contrast is there)

Not sure why either of them would be a mistake but I thought it best to eer on the side of caution and ask

[sacred mirage]

the despite is fine

i must have misread

[runic basin]

ye i thought like that too

[boreal ingot]

oh I see

thank you

[acoustic geyser]

If I say "Every man climbs a hill," does it mean that every single man is climbing his own hill?

Like I climb on my hill, my friend climbs on his hill.
Sorry if my question is a bit confusing.

[sacred mirage]

yes thats what it implies

oh

not individual hills

just a random one

[acoustic geyser]

Can I use "what if" with the past form and future form?

[trail slate]

Does this make sense?
"We were at the movies when this stray cat walked on the stage"

[sacred mirage]

yep that makes sense

[sacred mirage]

what do you mean

can you put it in sentences please

[verbal heron]

I think he means something like "What if we did this?"

"what if we do this?"

[sacred mirage]

that would for sure work

[cloud badge]

No, there's no implied specification over weather they're the same or different hills. If it said 'every man climbs his hill' then yes, but how it is there, it could be the same or diffetent hills. Like 'every dog has his day' vs 'every dog has a day' the second would make me think the day is shared by all dogs but it could be either.

[obsidian knoll]

Hey I have a question, when I want to call or mention somebody and they're a Marshal as a political status can I call them Mr. Marshal or "Mr." applies only to last names?

[cloud badge]

You shouldn't use since and because in the same sentence. They do the same thing, so either split the sentence with the because at the beginning or put the since in the middle like a typical sentence. 'I've been having nightly nightmares since you made me kill her' 'because you made me kill her, I've been having nightly nightmares'

[boreal ingot]

how do I specify that the nightamres are cuased by the person's making me kill her and that the nightemare have been happening since the time they made me kill her?

I have been having nightamres nightly since the day you made me kill her because you made me kill her

would this work?

idk, it sounds fine-ish? Like it's right there on the edge and I'm not sure how to feel about it

But I don't know why it feels a bit wrong tbh

[cloud badge]

You could say 'ever since you made me kill her, I've been having nightly nightmares' or maybe 'you made me kill her, and because of that I've been having nightmares every night since'

But it might be better to just break it up into two different sentences

And that sounds odd because you say 'you made me kill her'two times in one sentence.

Like maybe something like 'that night you made me kill her has been giving me nightmares ever since. It's because you made me do it, I'm getting them every night.'

[cloud badge]

Calling them mr marshal would be like giving them two titles, Marshall is already a title in that case so adding mr is a little silly.

Its like saying mr. doctor or miss ma'am.

[obsidian knoll]

Got it, thank you

Damn what a nice banner you have love butterflies

[cloud badge]

Thanks c: i made it myself ^-^

[shrewd narwhal]

meow

[little quartz]

'to wake up smb' how can I say else?

[crimson vortex]

Hello, you can't say it like this. You have to say "to wake smb up"

You have to almost always put a pronoun between two parts of a phrasal verb you use

But it doesn't work with nouns. You can put a noun either in the middle of a phrasal verb or after it. For example, "I woke Jake up" and "I woke up Jake" are both correct. However, "I woke up him" is wrong. Only "I woke him up" is correct

[little quartz]

Thank you, Freddie

[hoary lichen]

You can

Grammatically

It’s just not the better way of saying it

[crimson vortex]

Oh, it's because i've been taught like this

[hoary lichen]

All it does is make it sound weird

But it’s grammatically acceptable

Like when I’d personally prefer to use it is when there’s a pause

But that’s personal

It’s just a way less formal and more awkward way of saying it

[serene plinth]

Even I woke up Jake sounds weird

[hoary lichen]

Or also when it’s a longer phrase tending to add more

[serene plinth]

🤷‍♂️

[hoary lichen]

SUCH AS!
I’m going to wake up somebody that can deal with this

This way is the preferred and less awkward way

[acoustic geyser]

Hello

[acoustic geyser]

What is this usage of if?
I will do something if I will do something.
I've just seen a sorta sentence in a short on youtube.

[hoary lichen]

The usage of “wake up […]” over “wake […] up”?

(For example)

[acoustic geyser]

I'll help you if you will buy me a snack.

Like that

[dawn warren]

hi

[hoary lichen]

Ohhhhhhh

Sorry I read the question wrong

[dawn warren]

can someone rate my txt pls

text*

[dawn warren]

"Failure is one very frowned upon concept in human endeavor, for it is often linked with weakness, lack of intellect, incompetence.
Though is that really factual?

Stay tuned, as this essay will elucidate the hereinbefore stated inquiry to provide one with insight and comprehension on the topic.

First and foremost, it is to be clarified, that failure is of an optimistic realm if understood correctly, though most people (will) struggle to accept this fact.

One is highly probable to ask: "In what way is failure of an optimistic realm? How can such a concept have any positive impact linked to it?"

Failure, as previously stated, is initially perceived as a setback, yet it serves as a powerful tool and foundation for personal growth, often forged through self-reflection.

Ultimately, we all fall victim to failure, as it is a ubiquitous sector of an individual's path in life, but this does not indicate we are to enslave ourselves to the societal-construct-charged idea of failure; weakness, intellectual frailness, incompetence, etc.

We as entities of cognate power must open our eyes and view failure as a tool, a tool that teaches us to stay humble, a tool that teaches us about both pragmatical and self worth, one that aids us in personal growth.
"

[hoary lichen]

If means that if [condition is met] then [something will happen]

You’d use it in this case when you want to present an option

[acoustic geyser]

I thought it should use present tense?

[hoary lichen]

Wdym

[dawn warren]

@acoustic geyser
I will die from lack of blood, if a donor isn't found

If I study today, I will do good on the test tomorrow

[hoary lichen]

If can be used in any tense

[dawn warren]

If I had bought NVIDIA stocks in 2016, I would have been rich now

[dawn warren]

@hoary lichencan you please rate sir?

[hoary lichen]

Ok

[dawn warren]

thanks :D

[hoary lichen]

Let’s go to #📝｜proofreading

[dawn warren]

oke

[bitter hill]

You should use present tense in the conditional clause

[acoustic geyser]

Thanks also
Can of and about interchangeable in this case?
Talking about
Talking of

[wise locust]

Yall what's the difference between favorite and favourite?

[silent river]

favorite is the American spelling and favourite is the British spelling

same situation as "color" and "colour"

[wise locust]

Thanks

[glass pebble]

@manic crown hello

[knotty flax]

hi

[sly pier]

It sounds like you simply picked up a thesaurus for most words and wrote it in the most complicated way you could.

For academic writing, the longer/more uncommon/more pretentious the word is does not improve the quality of the essay.

Many of the words do not seem to fit the context and are used inappropriately. A lot of things seem out of place or don’t inherently make sense/add anything to the essay. It’s simply words for the sake of adding words.

“societal-construct-charged” is not an intelligible phrase.

Look up “purple prose” - it’s a trap many writers fall into.

Complicated vocabulary and phrasing does not equal a good essay.

Apologies if this feedback seems harsh, I don’t mean it to be. I used to write like that, so I understand where you’re coming from. It comes from a place of understanding rather than “your essay is terrible”.

Your essay is good!

[silent river]

if you're trying to make an English learner cry, you're on the right path
If you want to be clear and communicate your thoughts, try to cut back on the extreme vocabulary 😅
I'd rate it a 6/10, 8/10 if you make it easier to read instead of making one learn 2 new words per line

[boreal ingot]

Both are correct, but putting it between wake and up sounds more natural. However, when it's a pronoun it has to be between them, otherwise it's incorrect

I will wake Tim up
I will wake up Tim
I will wake him up

I will wake up him

[boreal ingot]

I will help you if you buy me a snack
Instead of
I will help you if you will buy me a snack

I feel the first is better

The second sounds wrong idk :p

[hoary lichen]

It is

The if basically covers that

No need for a second will because the if already lays out the condition

They’ll only help IF they buy the snack, the ‘willingness’ doesn’t matter

[boreal ingot]

I mean, the text sounds dramatic, but the only really outdated/uncommon words were 'hereinbefore' (which is extremely out of place) and 'elucidate' (which I personally had never heard before reading this essay so can't comment on how it sounds there, but if it's uncommon enough to not know, it might be out of place?). I feel they might have misused 'sector' and think that 'pragmatical' should have been 'pragmatism', though. However, overall, it's pretty good, imo, if a bit over the top for an essay.
Though yeah, that 'societal-construct-charged idea' bit did not make sense

@dawn warren

[dawn warren]

societal-construct-charged idea = a standard (or an idea) which has been fueled by society

[wet lichen]

im new

[boreal ingot]

I think it would mean 'An idea that is empowered by a societal construct'

You could said '... to the societal construct of ...' there and it would work fine

[boreal ingot]

Hey, so you all know how AmE uses 'Math' and BrE uses 'Maths'? This had me wondering, 1. when used as a noun adjunct, do Brits use 'math' or 'maths'? After all, noun adjuncts are typically in the singular form. So is it 'A math paper' or 'A maths paper' (and would 'math/s' be capitalised?). 2. when used as the subject of a verb, is the verb plural or singular for 'maths'? 'My math is off' sounds fine, but I'm not sure when it comes to 'My maths is/are off'

[signal shell]

I'm pretty sure math and maths are always treated as singular. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not too familiar with British usage.

[flat rune]

In every single scenario during my education in the uk I have used the plural. Whether that is technically correct, I have no idea but I can tell you that no one will bat an eye if you also use the plural in every situation here.

[sly pier]

A maths paper.

No, not capitalised.

My maths is off.

In BrE, it’s always “maths”.

[boreal ingot]

understood

thank you both

:>

[bitter hill]

Could've easily searched "maths paper" on Google 🤣

[boreal ingot]

oh wait, thank you three 😅

[boreal ingot]

oh true

[bitter hill]

🤔 I thought y'all use single quotes by default

[boreal ingot]

It seems not everyone does it informally

[boreal ingot]

#📚｜english-questions message

follow up the replies

if you'd like, lol

[bitter hill]

Interesting 🤔

I guess the punctuation placement still differs though lol

[hoary lichen]

i have never done this

only when its a quote within a quote would i do that

[errant kettle]

Hey there, in this channel you can ask a question you have about using English and the volunteers will do their best to help answer your question.

[boreal ingot]

if it's one gallows, then is it two gallowses?

https://youtu.be/FT98_SW67Dg?t=350

here he says 'here are the rules that I've came up with'
And I've often heard people say 'I've ran' instead of 'I've run'

what is this about?

[bitter hill]

Just simple mistakes

[boreal ingot]

oh

[bitter hill]

Though some mistakes occur more often, like have ran

[boreal ingot]

I see

so a speaker who uses 'I have ran'

would they use it in a formal context?

or 'I have came'

Like, are they aware of it being a mistake, usually?

[bitter hill]

Probably not

[boreal ingot]

probably wouldn't use it or probably aren't aware of it?

[bitter hill]

They probably aren't aware that they're mistaken

[boreal ingot]

Oh I see

thank you :>

[timid gazelle]

I'm sure almost everyone knows it's a mistake, because if you start thinking about it, it is very ungrammatical.
People who understand that would never speak this way in a formal context.

As for why it happens, no one will tell you, but probably for clarity?
Like if I say he's taken it might mean both he is taken and he has taken, but if I say he's took, everyone will understand I meant he has taken. That's just my guess, though

[boreal ingot]

I asked this because I know not all natives study the grammar of the language, so how would they know a past participle should follow 'has/have'? You said that 'almost everyone knows', but went on to say 'People who understand that [it is very ungrammatical] would never ...', so does that mean almost everyone knows it's a mistake? I thought usually natives didn't know grammar?

As for the ambiguity, the sentence I gave as an example would in no way be ambiguous if we were to swap the verb out for the correct form: '... the rules I've come up with'. You cannot construe it in any way besides the intended. I'd also argue that for your example with 'taken', it wouldn't be interpreted as 'has taken' unless an object follows since, otherwise, the sentence would be ungrammatical because of 'take' requiring a direct object ('He has taken' -> 'What has he taken?'); this all makes the interpretation of 'He has taken' very unlikely. Same thing with 'he's run'. You can't really say 'He is run', so that eliminates the ambiguity. This all is besides the fact that the context the full sentence is in also covers for any possible ambiguity. A case it would be ambiguous is 'he's eaten' or 'he's fed', etc., though, again, the context would eliminate ambiguity here.

So I don't really see why this happens, but it's language, language changes often, and natives don't always speak grammatically, I get that. I don't understand how the natives who do use it would realise it's a mistake, though. If you could explain that, I'd appreciate it

[timid gazelle]

I believe whenever you ask anything about how the natives know certain things, the answer is always the same - they just do, or they just feel that way.

They would know the past participle should follow have/has the same way they would know where to say "have" and where to change it to "has".

I'm very sure something similar happens in your first language as well. Try to think of some easily-avoidable mistake or a quirk that everyone tends to repeat. It's about the universal part of language, as you said, than about English in particular.

As for my guess about "I have ran", yes, if I say he's taken meaning he has taken, everyone will get that and there is very little chance for misinterpreting. But then again, there is often no chance for misinterpreting in the case of the articles too. Like if I just said I saw cat, everyone would know what I mean based on the context, no important information would go. For example, Chinese works this way. I believe it is called "preservation of information" or something, when languages use extensive grammar for avoiding ambiguity that often times would be extremely unlikely.

But then again, it was just my guess, you can think of your own and it would be just as valid.

[boreal ingot]

Yeah, that makes sense. They just intuitively understand that it's correct there. I would imagine this intuition is developed through exposure, which was how I understood English before getting into grammar a bit. I would also imagine they use V2 after 'has/have' because that's what they grew up hearing around them and that V3 after 'has/have' doesn't come naturally to them but they've seen it enough in non-informal contexts to know (if not aware of the fact they do) that that's what they should use in such contexts. You raise a fair point when it comes to the minimisation of ambiguity, which could play a role in this happening.
Thanks for answering my question 💜 Hope I didn't come off as attacking since that's what a lot of people think when I try to give my perspective and ask for an explanation 😅 Maybe I phrase it weirdly

[spark tangle]

No, that's always just the common reaction. People get attacked a lot online so it becomes the default for the majority

Everyone's always got a guard up.

[boreal ingot]

Oh makes sense. I might be guilty of that myself Thank you

[timid gazelle]

Speaking of V3/V2, natives feel them very sharply because they are very fundamental and different parts, so I really doubt there is any native speaker who wouldn't understand the difference between them.

And no, you didn't come off that way, you should be persistent and not satisfied with incomplete explanations to learn anyway

[spark tangle]

I do it too. I'll always apologize afterwards if they're reasonable.

[boreal ingot]

Understood, many thanks again

[acoustic geyser]

Hello

[acoustic geyser]

Is "I'm gonna have to" the same as "must" or "have to"?

[boreal ingot]

It will be necessary that I [x]

You are talking about something that in the future will be an obligation or necessity when you say that

[acoustic geyser]

Speaking of necessity, is "need to" the same as "must"?

I heard someone say need to sounds polite.

[ashen robin]

hi

[hoary lichen]

Same overall meaning, but yeah, “must” is a bit more blunt

[hoary lichen]

You are guessing too deep

It’s not a conscious decision, it is literally just something people do when they don’t know the right conventions

It happens all the time with “roadmen”, they mess around their whole time at school, never learn a thing and leave on their way to a bricklaying apprenticeship

It’s something very common amongst lower societal classes and the less academically adept

A nice way of saying the lesser educated

[spiral lynx]

when you say i must leave it's like you'"r saying i am obliged to leave because you have something to do after that

when you say i have to leave or i need to leave it's like a necessity, or just to be polite and leave , not necessarily in a rush

i guess like this ,no?

[dawn warren]

Yall thinking way too deeply about simple shi ngl

Its not even that deep bro

💀

[hoary lichen]

Must indicates a bit more of a rush

“I need to” is less rushed and blunt than “I must”. Must makes it seem that it’s more imperative to leave

[dawn warren]

Holy yapology session?

lemme read tho

Ok so

Its not that deep

If you a native you gon have read in said language yo whole life to the point where grammar sounds "correct" because it is stored in your subconscious mind due to the extensive and repeated amounts of reading

@boreal ingot

Does that make sense neow saar

[hoary lichen]

That is correct

[boreal ingot]

The question was already answered lol

thanks either way, I suppose

[hoary lichen]

bluds typing an article

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1196642066378268745/1316493498249253096/attachment.gif

[timid gazelle]

"I am gonna have to" is basically the same as "I will have to" (the future).
"Must" is always the present.

Must - absolutely have to
Have to - just have to
Need to - same as have to, but a little bit softer I guess?

The important thing to get is that all the words expressing necessity in English mean just the same thing - necessity.
It is just about different levels of it.
I mean the words like "must, should, have to, be obliged to, need to, ought to" and many others

[verbal heron]

Does the following sentence work?
"After his struggle with an incurable disease during his declining years, death finally placed a gentle kiss on him—bestowing upon him—an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life."

And I am not sure whether the dashes have been used properly

[timid gazelle]

yes, it does, everything is correct apart from the dashes.
Think of dashes as of parentheses. They add additional information that technically could be omitted.
'Bestowing upon him—a present—an internal respite from the cruel hands of life'

[bitter hill]

You should remove the 2nd dash since 'an eternal respite...' is the object of 'bestowing'. I'm not sure if a dash is considered valid when introducing a participial phrase at the end of a sentence, but I would probably use a comma there even if it was valid.

"After his struggle with an incurable disease during his declining years, death finally placed a gentle kiss on him, bestowing upon him an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life."

[severe mica]

If I like to prepare my self for IELTS exam, how I can start, what I need, is that any available contant to study

[hoary lichen]

what is IELTS

[verbal heron]

Alright Salvation, but should I use a semicolon there before "bestowing"? And using "internal respite" was not my aim; though "respite" typically refers to break lasting for short period, I wanted to check whether it could be used in a figurative sense

[kind sluice]

Can someone clarify me the specific meaning of passive voice grammar

[tall sky]

so passive voice is like if you said “the thing was done by me” instead of saying “I did the thing”

[kind sluice]

Is passive voice commonly use in speaking ?

[tall sky]

Not usually, unless you want to like, put emphasis on it

In writing it’s generally considered better not to use the passive voice.

At least that’s what I was told in school.

[boreal ingot]

Sometimes the do-er isn't relevant

So you use passive voice

For example

People were tortured in this room. I really don't want to stay here for long; it makes me feel bad.

Here the torturer isn't relevant

Just that people were tortured

I'd say passive voice is preferable in such cases

[round jungle]

It's used in speech when the subject (the person/thing doing the action) is unknown, irrelevant, or nobody/nothing in particular; or if you want to emphasize the action and object (the person/thing the action is being done to).

Scella just gave a good example above. If you say something like "They tortured people in this room" instead, the emphasis is more on the torturer and not the action of people being tortured

It's not uncommon, but does need more nuanced context to sound natural

[boreal ingot]

What's the difference between chivalry and gallantry?

[pulsar shell]

How to reduce an adverbial clause?

[timid gazelle]

Of course it could, anything could be used in the figurative sense.
But no, a semicolon wouldn't do there. The part "bestowing upon him an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life" in your sentence only makes sense as an addition to the phrase "death finally placed a gentle kiss on him". These two parts can't stand separately, and a semicolon is used in the opposite case.
'I lost the bet; I lost my money'. Here it works because both 'I lost the bet' and 'I lost my money' would do as separate sentences grammatically.

[timid gazelle]

English just can't do without the passive voice because it is too fundamental for its grammar. So as you probably know, English is an SVO language (an 'I love you') language, and a very important point about its grammar is that we can't hide the do-er or the character who does the action. For example, we can't just say 'love you', hiding the 'I'. Or 'came from work' instead of 'my father came from work'. In English, these sentences just don't work (well, sometimes they do work in a very colloquial type of speech, but that's another topic).

Why is it important? Because someone does something always and that someone is always clearly visible in the sentence. That opens up a problem, what do we do when we don't know who does the action? For example we find a dead body and we don't know who did it. The action doesn't happen by itself ('he died'), but we still don't know who did it, even though in English the character doing the action is always openly pronounced.

Well, we can say 'somebody killed him', right? Yes, but it would mean that particular somebody was alone, that it was a human and such a phrasing somehow personifies the sentence. So what else can we do? We can simply make the killed person the main character of the sentence and completely move that "somebody" out of it, in other words:
Somebody killed him —> He was killed

Why is it important? Because the main character (subject) of a sentence heavily affects how we perceive that sentence. When we say 'people wage wars', it puts the 'people' under the spotlight, even more so, it feels like people do that at will and are responsible for wars. On the other hand, saying 'wars are waged' feels depersonalized, as if it is absolutely of no concern who does the action. It almost sounds like 'wars happen'.

My family has been building this bridge over 10 months —> This bridge has been built over 10 months
Einstein proposed the relativity theory in 1905 —> The relativity theory was proposed in 1905
We cannot change the reality —> The reality cannot be changed
or even:
Superstitious people believe the number 13 is unlucky —> It is believed that the number 13 is unlucky / The number 13 is believed to be unlucky

[timid gazelle]

Chivalry is knighthood. "Chevaler" meant "knight" in French and that's basically it. You can use this word in the historical context speaking about knights or you can use it metaphorically meaning bravery, high standards, gallantry and so on. The adjective chivalrous is most often used this way.
Gallantry is basically a chivalrous behavior, a knightly behavior, the behavior of higher classes.

[boreal ingot]

they're both about gentlemanly behaviour towards women afaik

what is the difference between them in that sense

[timid gazelle]

none really, they are both about someone being like a knight

gallant
adjective

1. (of a person or their behaviour) brave; heroic.
   "she had made gallant efforts to pull herself together"
2. (of a man) charmingly attentive and chivalrous to women.
   "a gallant gentleman came over and kissed my hand"

but then again, it is not only about women, it's about knightly behavior in general. Bravery, courage, gentleness, loyalty and so on

[boreal ingot]

arent those seperate definitions?

[timid gazelle]

gallant vs. chivalrious?

[boreal ingot]

like, you seem to be mixing definitions 1 and 2 of gallant into one 'it's about knightly behavior in general. Bravery, courage, gentleness, loyalty and so on'

[boreal ingot]

but yeah, that was my main question tbh. 'Gallant man' vs 'Chivalrious man' when it comes to the meaning of 'attentive to women'

is it really none?

no nuance at all?

[cloud badge]

chivalrous is more about actions and gallant is more about looks, just to give a basic vibe difference

[timid gazelle]

well, I just perceive them as the same thing. Folklore is full of stories of knights saving young women or achieving their affection. So a nice, gentle behavior toward women (def 2) is 100% a knightly attribute, as well as all the others put in definition 1

in other words, a gallant person is a chivalrous person, whether we speak about treatment to women or not

[cloud badge]

theyre very similar though as they come from the same thing. you could describe a horse as gallant, its about the persona. chivalrous is about the respectful and honorable actions, putting others before themselves, doing brave acts etc.

[timid gazelle]

they're the same thing, really

[cloud badge]

hm but you can be chivalrous and not gallant at all

[timid gazelle]

for example?

[cloud badge]

if theyre awkward and unconfidant, unassuming, cowardly, but also put others before themselves, act brave when they need to, care about honor etc

then youd be chivalrous but not gallant

[boreal ingot]

Hm I see

[timid gazelle]

I don't really think you can be chivalrous if you're a coward

[cloud badge]

in the modern definition of chivalrous where its more about social actions i think you can, if youre cowardly when it just comes to matters to do with your own self. but if youre still brave for others, that counts i think.

[timid gazelle]

I dunno, really. I perceive them as exactly the same thing (gallant / chivalrious).
But hey, it's just me.

[cloud badge]

idk, to me chivalry is more about curteousness than bravery but true we can have different views

[boreal ingot]

:0 civil convo let's go

[timid gazelle]

the only nuance is that "chivalry" represents all the attributes of the class of the era. It's essentially just that - knighthood. So horses, swords, armor, the behavior, attitude, that's all about chivalry. Whereas "gallantry" is only about the behavior and attitude

[boreal ingot]

Got it, thank you both

[sly pier]

I agree with this.

[verbal heron]

Alright, but what about retaining the dash between "him" and "an eternal respite", given that bestowing is not a very common word?

[timid gazelle]

English is full of words that practically mean the same thing. Like "inspect" means "to look into" (in + spect), and yet we have the same phrasal verb "to look into". I mean, it happens all the time

[timid gazelle]

A comma seems like the only sensible sign there, to be honest

[vale portal]

Guys the hard r is a good greeting it’s very respectful and honorable, I will not say it though as it is something you can only say when you really mean it

[cloud badge]

i second this, the way u rewrote it for vampire was perfect

[verbal heron]

In the latter clause, is the word "finally" not letting the clause to stand alone?

[boreal ingot]

rrrrrrrr

bad

[vale portal]

No you got to search it up

[verbal heron]

Alright, I have no objection to disagreeing with you, for I am not really familiar with fluidity and lucidity of a sentence

[boreal ingot]

After his struggle with an incurable disease during his declining years, death finally placed a gentle kiss on him bestowing it upon him—an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life.

^ this could work, but even then I'd use a colon

[cloud badge]

one small piece of advice, avoid using dashes unless completely necessary, like in linked words. if you could use a comma instead, always go for comma. 99% of the time itll be more natural that way.

[verbal heron]

But what would that "it" stand for?

[boreal ingot]

'an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life'

pronouns can refer to stuff that comes later in the sentence, not just stuff before

[verbal heron]

Alright, thanks

[cloud badge]

really it should be 'After his struggle with an incurable disease during his declining years, death finally placed a gentle kiss on him, bestowing upon him an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life.' the extra it makes the sentence feel wrong.

[boreal ingot]

The 'it' isn't wrong. But you just wouldn't normally say it liek that

[verbal heron]

Should it be provided that the pronoun's followed by a comma?

[cloud badge]

if you want to break it up this may be better because it doesnt refer to the it two times in one sentence 'After his struggle with an incurable disease during his declining years, death finally placed a gentle kiss on him. It bestowed upon him an eternal respite from the cruel hands of life.'

[verbal heron]

But that was not my aim

[boreal ingot]

Not sure what you mean tbh

[boreal ingot]

What's your goal with the sentence?

[cloud badge]

if you dont want to break it up just use the one comma where salvation suggested

[verbal heron]

To make a complex sentence using the word "respite" in a broader sense, but while doing so it required extra context

[verbal heron]

Like in the sentence, "After his pride was injured, Nathan was no more the same vain person"

[boreal ingot]

I think youve done that well. Your main issue seems to be em dashes

[boreal ingot]

I don't think there always is a comma after cataphoric pronouns, but your sentence does require one, yes

[cloud badge]

its a good sentence aside from the dashes, but now that I think about it, a respite is not something permanant, so an eternal respite is kind of an oxymoron. but its mostly correct.

[boreal ingot]

Here in pic 1 it's full stops. In pics 2 and3 it's colons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphora

[verbal heron]

You know what I've found recently that the textbooks I follow for school use innumerable number of dashes. But I never bothered to ask my teachers what they were. I remember they told me that these are hyphens 💀

[boreal ingot]

yeah those are em dashes. Sometimes em dashes are written as 2 hyphens though

[cloud badge]

hyphens usually connect words, you dont use them for most other things aside from text visibility so them being common in text books would make sense for emphasizing the lesson, but arent used like that in most typical writing.

[verbal heron]

Ah alright, but now I think the above sentence is ambiguous

[boreal ingot]

Btw, 100% unrelated, would you all say this sentence implies the speaker has multiple boyfriends?

He's the biggest slob I know. He's really stupid. He's so cruel. He's my boyfriend Nick.

If they only had 1 then there should be a comma before 'Nick', no?

[cloud badge]

no, id just think they were ranting about one person, unless i was in person and they were gesturing to different poeple each time they said 'he'

there would need to be more relevant context to assume multiple poeple imo

[verbal heron]

like --?

[boreal ingot]

Nono, I mean, when it's a nonrestrictive appositive phrase you use commas, but when it's a restrictive appositive, then you don't. So if you are pointing out 1 of multiple boyfriends it's

My boyfriend Nick is rude, but my boyfriend Mike is nice.
while if it's just extra info, you use a comma
My boyfriend***,*** Mike***,*** is really nice.

So in the example from wiki, they say

He's the biggest slob I know. He's really stupid. He's so cruel. He's my boyfriend Nick.
without a comma before 'Nick', which should mean 'my boyfriend' can refer to more than one person, and 'Nick' is there to restrict it to one, no?

I'm not talking about the multiple hes, I know those all refer to 'My boyfriend Nick'; I'm talking about the lack of a comma before 'Nick'

[boreal ingot]

Yeah

[verbal heron]

Alright

[verbal heron]

Well, I follow it now, thanks

[cloud badge]

oh oops, hm the way id read it with the comma would be that theyre talking to someone named nick about their boyfriend. and without the comma, its like theyre listing things about their boyfriend named nick. no thought of them having multiple boyfriends came to mind

[verbal heron]

Does the following sentence work?
"On my not having anything edible for hours, my stomach started rumbling"

[boreal ingot]

oh, I suppose with the comma it can be interpersted as either a vocative and a nonrestrictive appositive, I didn't think of that

[boreal ingot]

I think if you remove 'edible' it could work

as it is, it's liek saying 'the fact I didn't' own anything that is edible for hours was the cuase of my stomach starting to rumble'

[cloud badge]

very odd, the 'on my' is totally unnatural there. id change it to 'Speaking of me not eating anthing for hours, my stomach just started rumbling." or 'Because i didnt eat anything for hours, my stomach started rumbling' Id personally go with 'My stomach started rumbling because i havent eaten anything for hours" but thats a bigger change than necessary

[boreal ingot]

Although, i'd change 'for hours' to an exact amount of hours

[boreal ingot]

I think they're using this meaning of 'on': 'On Mike entering the room, I got up'

[cloud badge]

yeah, unless you emphasize hours to imply it was a lot of them.

[boreal ingot]

Personally I use 'upon' for this meaning instead of 'on'

It sounds more natural to me, but I believe both are used this way

[cloud badge]

Id also use upon there, on is not very commonly used in that way

[verbal heron]

Why would you not use edible there?

[boreal ingot]

Do you mean 'have' as in 'eat' or 'have' as in 'own'?

[cloud badge]

it would make me think you were eating things like rocks or sand or something, but hadnt eaten any real food yet xD

[boreal ingot]

As it is, you either ate non-edible things, or owned no edible things

[verbal heron]

I mean it's from the structure in the following sentence
"On my sudden sneezing, he twisted his face"

[cloud badge]

i have some friends from germany who use it to mean good food though, so you can use it the way you did, its just not typical.

[boreal ingot]

So your sentence means either 'The fact that for hours I didn't owned anything edible made my stomach rumble' or 'The fact that for hours I ate stuff but didn't eat anything edible made my stomach rumble' I think

[verbal heron]

'have' as in 'eat'

[boreal ingot]

then your sentence means you did have things, just not edible things

[cloud badge]

yeah exactly

[boreal ingot]

again, it's not ungrammatical, I just think it doesn't mean what you want it to mean (it's also not very natural, but I'm guessing you're asking about grammar)

[verbal heron]

💀

[verbal heron]

Ah, aight

[cloud badge]

the word edible is much more tied to non toxic rather than tasty or eatable things

[boreal ingot]

Oh, by the way, @cloud badge, do you think there should be a 'had' after 'having'? I would probably add one personally

Upon my not having had anything edible for hours, my stomach started rumbling

Ignoring that it sounds liek they ate rocks :p

[verbal heron]

Oh, should I use eatable in that case?

[boreal ingot]

'good' would work tbh

'anything good' is pretty common

[cloud badge]

no, I was always taught to use as few had/haves as possible, the sentence works without it, but it does make it a little more ambiguous. both are proper grammar.

[boreal ingot]

I see thanks

[cloud badge]

you can, but people very rarely use that word, id say something about the food, like tasty, nutritious, filling etc, or 'not having/having had anything to eat for hours'

[verbal heron]

keeping structure of the sentence, "On the teacher's enquiring about the question, the students grew nervous" as a reference, I wanted to check whether the structure could be followed in a negative sense

[cloud badge]

i think on is too vague, its leaves too many questions as to whats going on.

[verbal heron]

I mean when one hasn't eaten anything for a long while one may not look for any precious. In fact, anything that can be eaten (whether it's gruel or any stale food) might do for one

[cloud badge]

like, im not sure if you mean 'upon the teachers inquiry about the question' or 'when the teacher started enquiring about the question', or 'when the teacher enquires about the question, students grow nervous'

[boreal ingot]

Unrelated: when using 'one' as above ^, is it not preferable to refer back to it using 'they/them' or the generic masculine 'he/him' over 'one' again?

[cloud badge]

gruel is still edible though, and eatable is verrrry seldom used, maybe satisfying or good would be better to use

[verbal heron]

what is the difference in the meaning between the first two clauses?

[boreal ingot]

This is what I mean:

I mean, when one hasn't eaten anything for a long while, they/he may not look for anything precious. In fact, anything that can be eaten would satisfy them/him.

I mean, when one hasn't eaten anything for a long while, one may not look for anything precious. In fact, anything that can be eaten would satisfy one.

Wouldn't the first be better than the second?

[cloud badge]

if youre talking about the one in the second sentence, yes. the first sentence is good. the second sentence should just have ended after 'might do'

[verbal heron]

Isn't 'one' used as a singular?

[boreal ingot]

they is also ised for singular :p

[cloud badge]

the first is more abrupt than the second

and it could be in present tense or past

[boreal ingot]

I mean when refering back to 'one', isn't it incorrect to use 'one' again? Shouldn't 'they' or 'he' be used?
#📚｜english-questions message

[verbal heron]

yes, but since the subject has been referred to as 'one' once I think 'one' should be used while referring back to them

[boreal ingot]

I'm not sure. I've always thought you use 'one' for the first and another pronoun for the rest, unless it's reflexive then you use 'oneself'

[cloud badge]

the first is not better than the second, theyre both ok

well until the last word

[verbal heron]

What do you think of "One should love one's country"?

or is it wrong?

or is it impertinent?

[boreal ingot]

That's what I'm asking, cuz I persoanlly would say 'one should love their country', but I'm not sure if it's wrong or not to use 'one' twice

[verbal heron]

But I think the second clause explains whether it's the past or present tense

[cloud badge]

'I mean, when one hasn't eaten anything for a long while, one may not look for anything precious. In fact, anything that can be eaten would be satisfying/ would satisfy someone./a person./them.'

[verbal heron]

I was taught that "one should love one's country " is correct. Although I was never told that "they" is used as a singular, I found it later that it can be used.

[cloud badge]

the first part really makes it sound like its in present tense, but then the second part is in the past, so its confusing to me.

[verbal heron]

It's just that I found that in books

idk really sorry

[cloud badge]

some books use very odd or regional, stylized, or outdated wording, it just seems unnatural in regular speech

[verbal heron]

I remember to have found such wording in Oliver Twist and Pride and Prejudice. But I am not sure whether I would be able find the sentences now 💀

[cloud badge]

Ah that explains it, those are very outdated books in the speech they used, and they often write the dialog the way people spoke, in Oliver twist ifi remember correctly, people were very uneducated and that was part of what made the book challenging to read. Good for a story, not so good for clarity.

[boreal ingot]

Okay after a bit of googling, technically, you should only use 'one' or only use 'they', but it's common to use 'one' at first then 'they' for all the following ones, it's to avoid how extremely formal and stilted 'one' sounds when repeated. So prescriptively, my sentence with 'one' then 'they/him' would be incorrect cuz it switches pronouns (its equivalent to saying 'She put on their dress' when referring to the same person twice, but it doesn't sound as bad/odd)

this question's comments and singular answer are pretty good:
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/355566/can-i-use-one-and-they-them-their-in-the-same-sentence

[little quartz]

Hi, who can help me with "way off" what it means?

[boreal ingot]

very inaccurate

[cloud badge]

It means you are far off the mark, or youre completely missing something. Or like your opinion is completely wrong because you don't know the facts.

[little quartz]

thank you guys 🙂

[cloud badge]

I believe it comes from the phrase 'off base', yet another English term that came from baseball. And yeah sure c:

[boreal ingot]

They came into the room wherein I was

this correct?

[timid gazelle]

no, it's either 'in which I was' (more literary) or 'I was in' (more colloquially natural)

[boreal ingot]

Why wouldn't it be correct

Wherein is a word isn't it? Just like wherebetween, therein, whereby, etc

[timid gazelle]

Actually, the dictionary says "wherein" has the meaning "in which", soo yeah maybe? I'm not sure, sounds way too off to me

[boreal ingot]

I just wanted to check if Ive used it correctly

[boreal ingot]

So have I used wherein correctly or not?

[timid gazelle]

Yes, you have technically

[boreal ingot]

Thanks for the help, but what do you mean by 'technically'?

[timid gazelle]

"Wherein" is usually used as a conjunction (like whereas, for example), so that threw me off at first.
By "technically" I mean it IS correct, but reasonable to use only if you aim for a very archaic sounding

[boreal ingot]

could you give an example of the conjunction use?

I think my sentence used it as one, actually?

[verbal heron]

Ah, I read these books to know the proper contextualization of intricate/uncommon formal words

along with a seemingly easy-to-follow narrative

[verbal heron]

That's quite helpful, thanks scella

[boreal ingot]

np

[timid gazelle]

Yes, in fact it does, probably using this word in a physical sense was what threw me off initially.

'Such concepts wherein multiple ideas are implied is what makes them difficult to approach.'

Here it sounds natural to me because of the heavy wording and a vague tone of the sentence in general

But then again, "wherein" simply means "in which" yes

[acoustic geyser]

Are something and anything used with object only?

[boreal ingot]

The room wherein I sat, and whereinto they would later come, was a quite expansive one. With a massive colonnade crossing from one end to the other on either side and a domed ceiling engraved with gold, it was sure to enthrall whoever should set eyes upon it.

Does it work there?

[boreal ingot]

'something' can be used for living things that are mysterious or monstrous

[serene plinth]

@muted stream

Try sending the pic here

[muted stream]

Can’t

[cloud badge]

You should say 'with a massive colonnade' because colonnades is plural

Or with massive colonnades

[boreal ingot]

Yea I edited from 'with two massive colonnades' but forgot to remove the s lol

[bitter hill]

Probably a case where semantic meaning would override

[timid gazelle]

yes, it works the same way

wherein = in which
whereinto = into which
whereas = as which

and so on

[cloud badge]

Oh xp ok cool cool

[boreal ingot]

Wdym? Are you saying that the context (the fact we know the speaker probably only has 1 boyfriend) would override the meaning the punctuation gives? Would this not still be a mistake?

btw, isn't this more pragmatic than semantic? Just asking cuz I'd like to understand the difference between the two better

[boreal ingot]

Thank you, then :>

By the way 'as which'? I can't think of a sentence with that

Do you have any idea

[boreal ingot]

Thanks either way :>

[bleak vortex]

can i ask a question

[boreal ingot]

This is the channel for questions about the English language, so you don't need to ask to ask, you should just ask

[bleak vortex]

is this corrct

she don't like to be late, but always is

[boreal ingot]

Nope

it should be 'doesn't'

[bleak vortex]

why?

[boreal ingot]

not 'don't'

[boreal ingot]

'Do' is used with first person-suingular and plural, second-person singular and plural, third-person plural, with singular 'they', and plural nouns, while 'does' is used for third-person singular and plural nouns

In other words,
use 'do' with 'I', 'we', 'they', 'you', and plural nouns
use 'does' with 'she', 'he', 'it', and singular nouns

[bleak vortex]

in conclusion, the sentence should be "she doesn't like to be late, but always is", and if i use I it should be "i dont like to be late, but always is", right?

[timid gazelle]

the example I gave was more about the logic behind "wherein", "whereas" and so on.
"Whereas" doesn't mean "as which" by itself, but initially it came from "at which place".

Speaking of a sentence with "as which", we can say something like 'This book reminds me of my story, as which I want it to be'

[boreal ingot]

almost, with 'I' you use 'am'

I don't like to be late but always am

[bleak vortex]

oh! right

[boreal ingot]

But yes, otherwise you're right

[bleak vortex]

oohhhh thank you

[boreal ingot]

No problem :)

[boreal ingot]

oh thas a weird sentence

thanks for the example of it in use

[boreal ingot]

https://www.thoughtco.com/reduced-adverb-clauses-1211106

[timid gazelle]

Yeah, it actually sounds pretty quirkly and unnatural, but it is still possible to say it this way

[acoustic geyser]

Is this correct?
She is somewhere in Aberdeen

• (the place referred to is specific but unknown, i.e., some unspecified place.)
  She is anywhere in the world
  -(The place is not specific)

[boreal ingot]

It sounds odd to say 'anywhere in the world' not sure why

but you've used 'somewhere' correctly, yeah

[timid gazelle]

'She is anywhere in the world' doesn't make sense because it says she is literally in every place in the world at once

She is somewhere in the world

[boreal ingot]

If you were to say

She could be anywhere in the world
I think it could work

though it still feels odd to say 'anywhere in the world', idk why :/

[timid gazelle]

'She could be anywhere in the world' sounds fine to me

[bitter hill]

Probably lol, I'm not really familiar with it

[bitter hill]

What do you mean by mistake here?

[boreal ingot]

I mean if they meant 'Nick' as addetional info instead of a way to clarify that they are talkng about their the boyfriedn Nick (not any other boyfriend of theirs)

wouldn't not having a comma be a mistake?

Like, since they intended it as a nonrestrictive appositive but didn't put a comma

[bitter hill]

I don't think it'd necessarily be a mistake

Maybe semantic/pragmatic ambiguity? But even then it's easily resolved by context as well as common sense

I also found this in the Wikipedia page under apposition, though idk about the credibility of this particular line

[boreal ingot]

I see, intereting

[boreal ingot]

I guess it's just a correct sentence that doesn't exactly convey what the writer wanted it to

but it can still be derived what they wanted it to mean regardless

[hoary lichen]

meh

[boreal ingot]

meh ?

[hoary lichen]

i wouldn’t ever read it like that

context clues

[boreal ingot]

But by the rules of how you punctuate restrictive and nonrestrictive appositives that's what it means

[boreal ingot]

but it can still be derived what they wanted it to mean regardless

I think you missed that part of my message

[hoary lichen]

@warm rampart the hub

[warm rampart]

catch the gouda

[hoary lichen]

ASSEMBLE

[warm rampart]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

i want to play strange and hela today

[hoary lichen]

strange is the only good vanguard

change my mind

[warm rampart]

? idiot.

captain america exists.

[hoary lichen]

? assemble.

those who have an assertion of knowledge: 💀

[warm rampart]

dekubopdumnem

[hoary lichen]

winter soldiers rise up

[warm rampart]

ARMED AND DANGEROUS!

[hoary lichen]

Tenereus 3-16

[acoustic geyser]

Whats difference between anything and everythingng?

[hoary lichen]

anything = any single thing
everything = all things

[flat rune]

What is the difference between chase and hunt ?

[timid gazelle]

Hunting is a process of chasing and killing animals. A very old human craft, really. And animals hunt each other too. You can use this word metaphorically and apply it to people or anything, really. For example, a bounty hunter can say he hunts certain people.
Chasing is a process of catching up with something/someone. It can be about anything. You can chase people, animals, dreams or anything. For example, this piece of text I really love says: 'I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind'
Here it is said that a man was trying to get a great knowledge, but then realized it was "a chasing after wind", meaning it was pointless, of no avail, because wind is always faster, you can never catch up with it.

In short, hunting is chasing animals

[gaunt mango]

A simpler way to explain is, hunting is usually considered a sport, like you would hunt animals or it would be used as an active verb like you are hunting for a goal or end result (consider job hunting, the process of looking for jobs)

Whereas chasing could be considered more sudden, or reactive and is more focused on speed over seeking.

The police chased down the killer as soon as he bolted out the door
vs
The police hunted down the killer, they knew he was somewhere in the house

[flat rune]

Tysm

Is it correct if i say '' I chased my brother from the house because he brought me back many problems. '' '' Since i have been chased from my brother's house, I'm hunting some animals to feed myself. ''

[hollow night]

Grammar Question. Do I need to use "high-grade" twice in the following sentence?

**Sentence: For your reward, you'll be getting a high-grade mana stone and wand.
**
Context: Both the mana stone and wand are high-grade items.

[timid gazelle]

Yes, sounds alright, except for the word "back". Although that would depend on the context.

[flat rune]

ty

[timid gazelle]

No, that's not necessary.
The way you said it doesn't make it clear that both the mana stone and the wand are high-grade, but it does not erase the option for that either.

1. For your reward, you'll be getting a high-grade mana stone and wand. the mana stone is certainly high-grade, the wand - maybe
2. For your reward, you'll be getting a high-grade mana stone and a high-grade wand. both are certainly high-grade
3. For your reward, you'll be getting a high-grade mana stone and a wand. the wand is certainly not high-grade

[hollow night]

How about this?

For your reward, you'll be getting both a high-grade mana stone and wand.

[timid gazelle]

it's still option 1 in my message

[hollow night]

ok, gotcha. thanks for the feedback! 🙂

[boreal ingot]

Afaik 'a high-grade' should apply to both

@hollow night I agree with them but I think the first means both are definitely high grade

[timid gazelle]

that's what I initially wrote, but after I thought into it I chaged my reply to what it is now.
My logic is: 'I bought a blue house and apartment'. Well, it's pretty clear that the apartment is not blue, so grammatical ambiguity has to work here and the original sentence is exactly of the same pattern

[boreal ingot]

An example would be

The scared cats and dogs ran away.
Here scared applies to both
But in
The scared cats and the dogs ran away.
The dogs could be scared, but they also might not be. The cats are sacred

@hollow night

[boreal ingot]

To me, that sounds wrong with an 'an' because the apartment is not blue

Since I want to make it clear the apartment isn't blue I'd add 'an' before it

[timid gazelle]

actually, if you put "the" before "dogs", it is clear that dogs aren't scared. I might be wrong here, but I feel that pretty clearly

[timid gazelle]

I mean that an apartment can't be blue, right? It's an apartment.
Or "my brother brought the fluffy cat and lizard".
Lizards can't be fluffy, but the sentence is not incorrect, hence "fluffy" only modifies "cat" while "the" modifies both

[boreal ingot]

I think it's just not mentioned what the state of the dogs is

Rather than strictly not scared

We just don't know

[flat rune]

What is the difference between : I wish i was like you. I wish i were trying that before it's gone.

[timid gazelle]

Well, when we say "a man", we don't know either. He might be scared or not, but no adjective is applied to him for sure

[boreal ingot]

Here, you're deriving that the adjective fluffy doesn't apply to the second noun because of a semantic clash between what the noun's typical characteristics are and what the adjective claims the noun to have as an attribute, but technically, that adjective is modifying both nouns. Replace 'lizard' with something that doesn't clash in meaning with 'fluffy' and you end up reading it as both being fluffy. The second noun thus is modified by the adjective too, but logically, you derive the intended meaning, the semantic clash notwithstanding.

She brought the fluffy cat and dog.

Anyways, that's my take on it

Here's a good blog post (I think it's a blog?) about this. The first part discusses our issue while the second talks about a different but similar idea involving three nouns: https://theeditorsblog.net/2015/08/08/one-adjective-paired-with-multiple-nouns-a-readers-question/

[timid gazelle]

I totally agree that I tend to apply one adjective before several nouns to all nouns if it doesn't contradict the logic of the sentence.

But again, technically, it doesn't have to happen this way. And if we think into it, "he brought a fluffy cat and dog" does not have to imply that the dog is fluffy, even though it strongly feels this way.

And in the case of "a high-grade mana stone and wand", it would depend on the context, because the rules of the game (if that text is from a game) could be very different

[timid gazelle]

"I wish I was" sounds okay, I'd say most people around me speak this way
"I wish I were" is also perfect, maybe a bit more literal, but essentially the same

[flat rune]

I've also seen people saying you was

But you was is grammatically incorrect

It's you were

[boreal ingot]

Ig informally it's used in a way where the second doesn't have the adjective applied, but as far as I know, the adjective modified the entire thing joined by commas and 'and', up until a determiner or another adjective is there

[timid gazelle]

yes it is, it's an extremely colloquial way of saying things like "he do" or "it do be" etc.

[flat rune]

It's informal

You say that when talking to your friends

But you won't tell that to your teacher

Anyway ty for replying

[boreal ingot]

Personally, if I wanted to specify the dog's not being furry, I would add an 'a' or 'the', but I can see someone not doing that. I would advise against it either way, but I'm no expert. I believe their sentence meant both the wand and the stone are high-grade, and if it's a quest description in a game, I would expect it to have been run by editors who would make sure it abides by this rule if I were a player. Aka, I wouldn't expect it to use an informal phrasing :p

[timid gazelle]

People perceive sentences in the way that makes sense the most.
If an adjective modifying every noun sounds reasonable, it will be correct.
If not, it will also be correct.
But there is no rule concerning which adjective modifies which noun after which noun

that's at least the way I see it

[boreal ingot]

There is a rule though? Style guidelines have one I believe. The blog post I sent briefly cites the Chicago Manual of Style

I think you're talking from a more general 'how it can be interpreted' stance, while I'm more concerned with what the actual rule itself is

[verbal heron]

Aren't those collocations?

[timid gazelle]

Yes, I speak about how it can be interpreted, but based on the language's logic.
I've read the article you sent, but it is what you said - a guideline. It's about how to make your writing more understandable for a reader rather than about the English syntax

So I think adjectives modify nouns very contextually

[timid gazelle]

what are?

[verbal heron]

The modifiers and the nouns

[timid gazelle]

I'm not sure what you mean

[verbal heron]

I have to adjust my ideas 💀, I will do that later, going to sleep now

[timid gazelle]

alright

[bitter hill]

It might be more likely to interpret it like that but it doesn't mean there's absolutely no ambiguity

[boreal ingot]

You can also use a single adjective when you’re modifying a string of nouns and/or pronouns.

To save a few pennies, Lewis picked up expired milk, cheese, and bread.

In this example, the milk, cheese, and bread are all old, past their expiration dates.

The pageantry and shows were fun, but we went to the Renaissance festival for the yummy pies, wines, and funnel cakes.

In this example, the foods are all yummy.

I found it true that some dogs, children, cars, and in-laws get on my nerves.

The speaker is pointing out that some of the members of each of these categories annoy her

If you don’t want to imply that two nouns are modified by the same adjective, you can either change the word order, pairing the noun with the adjective last in the list, or you can give the second noun a different modifier, even if it’s just a determiner. A different modifier for the second noun or pronoun breaks the pattern—readers understand that the first adjective belongs only to the first noun and that the nouns that follow will have their own modifiers.
(bold part was bold in the article)

If you did read it you must heve seen these parts. It directly tells you to rephrase it if you want to be sure the adjective doesn' modify both nouns. I see how logic could play into it, but I'm more trying to look at this from an editor's point of you. There shouldn't be any ambiguity for the reader to figure out

[bitter hill]

from cgel

Tfw deja vu strikes...

[timid gazelle]

'Lewis picked up expired milk, cheese and bread.'

I wouldn't have thought the cheese and bread were expired if I'd seen this phrase out of context

[timid gazelle]

I'm not sure I got it right, but if I did, it shows that even very simple and overall understandable sentences can be very ambiguous?

Like even 'long poems and essays' does not imply the essays are long, which is totally true if you start think into it!

And 'he left and called his wife' is very interesting, too

people just automatically choose the options that make most sense

[cloud badge]

I wouldn't think that cuz it's a lot easier to tell if cheese and bread are expired than milk, and the sentence can be read either way, so it just makes more sense to not go with the less likely one.

But yeah its ambiguous, for sure.

[bitter hill]

Yeah it does say that the reading [long poems and long essays] is in general more likely but that doesn't mean it's completely unambiguous

[boreal ingot]

I think all three are expired But your interpretation is possible too, after reading the thing Akuma sent.

[expired milk], [cheese], and [bread]
instead of
expired [milk, cheese, and bread]

[timid gazelle]

square parenthesis makes it much easier

[boreal ingot]

so in the end of the last page they're saying the more likely interpretation is the one people will go with?

[cloud badge]

Yeah sentences like that need more context or common sense. If the milk was the only expired thing, i personally would have listed 'expired milk' after cheese and bread just to be more clear.

[boreal ingot]

yeah that's what I'd do, put it at the end

or ad another 'and'

Get [[expired milk] and [cheese and bread]].

[cloud badge]

Hm i disagree, having two ands is not ideal

[boreal ingot]

It does give the intended meaning, though

[cloud badge]

But it's bad grammar

[boreal ingot]

But yea, at the end would be best

[boreal ingot]

Nothing is ungrammatical about that sentence afaik

[cloud badge]

Two ands in a list is frowned upon

[boreal ingot]

it's a list containing a list

[cloud badge]

If you phrase it correctly you can just use commas

[boreal ingot]

the coordinate phrase 'cheese and bread]' is joined with the phrase 'expired milk' by an 'and'

while it does sound bad, it's not ungrammatical. That 'and' serves to show that that adjective 'expired' doesn't apply to all three

I would think so, at least

[bitter hill]

I wouldn't put that as a list if you wanted to treat the milk as the only expired item

[cloud badge]

The and doesnt really do that, and that makes me think the cheese and bread are one item

[bitter hill]

Get expired milk as well as cheese and bread

But if it's part of a set phrase like fish and chips you can parse it as

[[fish and chips] and [bread]]

[cloud badge]

Yeah exactly

[bitter hill]

But yes it's not technically ungrammatical

Just stylistically awful

[boreal ingot]

I see, makes sense

Now I have no idea how to remove the abeguity :/

ambiguity

[cloud badge]

Adding more context or changing the list order will help.

Sometimes you can't remove it though and that's ok, you'll just have to trust the reader, theyll usually use common sense to decide the meaning

[cloud badge]

The sentence here doesn't need two high grades, if it said 'a high grade mana stone and A wand, id assume the wand was not high grade, but as is, it makes sense that they're both high grade. For clarity you could say 'you'll be getting two high grade rewards, a mana stone and a wand' but it's not needed

[rapid bison]

🤔
why is the singular they so controversial (I can ping a few particular English teachers), but you being always plural isn't contested at all?

// note
this is a history/linguistics-ish question

[hoary lichen]

personally idk

to me there’s nothing wrong with it

[cloud badge]

But you is not always plural?

[rapid bison]

in form, sorry.

[cloud badge]

What do you mean by that

[hoary lichen]

all im getting from this is saying “they” to a single person is bad?

i’ve only heard that from the whiny anti pronoun mob

[cloud badge]

Its not bad, it's just ambiguous and causes confusion and miscommunication without the proper context

With context its fine

[hoary lichen]

i mean it’s barely more ambiguous than the gender specific pronouns

where miscommunication can occur with 2+ people of the same gender instead of just 2+ people

so idk why it’s controversial

[cloud badge]

The ambiguity is weather its about a single person or a group, unlike the other gender pronouns

[hoary lichen]

true but that’d come down to bad form

i’d never try referring to someone specific with they after mentioning a group without context

[cloud badge]

Yeah with context is fine but without it, it causes confusions that the other ones could not.

This is why some people were calling for a new gender term rather than using they but it never took off

[hoary lichen]

xe/xir 🤪

[cloud badge]

Yes, for example

[cloud badge]

It makes sense this one didn't stick because the pronunciation itself is ambiguous 😅 seems they can't get away from it

[hoary lichen]

x needs to be removed from the alphabet

least useful letter

[past forum]

Can you give me permission to Share image's

Anyone

[obsidian jay]

Hii

[cloud badge]

But it looks coollll

[hoary lichen]

you need to get to level 5

is this elon musk im talking to

[past forum]

I need to remove my doubt

This is urgent

Please

[obsidian jay]

Hii I'm new here can anyone say what to do

[hoary lichen]

i can’t do anything and this isn’t the channel

[cloud badge]

You can dm me if u need help that badly

[hoary lichen]

it’s just a place to chat and practice english, there’s lessons in #classes-announcements that help further

you can join voice channels to speak or use any of the chats for normal text

[past forum]

See the message

[obsidian jay]

What is the meaning of Sophisticated

[acoustic geyser]

Whats difference?
To go this way is a good idea
Going this way is a good idea

[acoustic geyser]

Who has pinged me

[timid gazelle]

Practically, in your sentence there's none. To/-ing are the two ways to turn verbs into subjects (characters who do something).

To love is a beautiful thing
Loving is a beautiful thing
To work a lot tires me
Working a lot tires me

Technically, "to + verb" doesn't change the verb, this way it's still a verb, and "-ing" turns a verb into a noun indicating process.

To build (verb) - to go through the process of building
Building (noun) - the process of "to build"
To explain (verb) - to go through the process of explaining
Explaining (noun) - the process of "to explain"
and so on

[acoustic geyser]

Can I use it whenever I like?

[timid gazelle]

yeah, sure. but making subjects out of "to + verb" sounds pretty literally, I guess

[regal sentinel]

Hi, I'm mehdi 18 yo, I'm looking for I speaking partner, who's Level around A

[boreal ingot]

You comes from the oblique form of ye

Ye was plural

Its object form was yow

And that became you

However, yow, the object form of ye, was used as a formal singular second-person pronoun

While thou and thee were the informal ones

I think the point they were making was, if you comes from the plural pronoun, why does no one mind using it as a singular pronoun

They were comparing 'they' to 'you'

Singular they comes from plural they, singular you comes from plural you

I would say that you was already used as a formal singular, so that's an unfair comparison @rapid bison

But Im not against singular they, language changes

[cloud badge]

Oh huh ok, well if i were to guess itd be because yow and ye sound so similar to you, and that the chance for misunderstanding is low enough that combining their meanings was just easier for the masses, they has it harder because its tied to gendered pronouns along with a group while you is just either a group or a vague singular person.

[boreal ingot]

That was a good explanation they gave, but it's not a noun, it's a gerund

[cloud badge]

Ok now i have a question, I've never seen the word gerund until i joined this server, what does that mean?

[timid gazelle]

gerunds are essentially nouns

[timid gazelle]

anything-ing like "running", "talking", "thinking" etc.

[boreal ingot]

No like,
Ye was the subject second-person plural
Yow was the object second-person singular

Ye love the lord
The lord loves yow
^

Yow was also used as a formal subject and object singular

Yow, the lord, love all.
We love yow, the lord.

Then later, yow became you. And we stopped using thou and thee, so you stopped being formal and became the second-person pronoun used in all cases and numbers

I would say it's an unfair comparison cuz yow was already singular sometimes

Ngl they means the gender is irrelevant, so it really is just a plural vs singular issue

In the end we could mark the verb for that

You loves = 1 person
You love = more than 1

But I don't think this will ever actually happen. It's too big a change

[cloud badge]

I guess my point was just that, the reason people don't have a problem with using one word for those multiple words, is that it has less chance of creating misunderstandings as they does

[boreal ingot]

I don't think I've genuinely been confused with someone using 'they', tbh 😅

[cloud badge]

Ha yeah i thought that was a funny wording too, i almost changed it to 'the word they' but xp nah

[cloud badge]

Huh ok, i never knew there was a name for those

[boreal ingot]

It's a verb in its -ing form acting like a noun. However it's not 100% like a noun, as it can't have a determiner or adjective before it, and it can be modified by an adverb

The intense running I did tired me immensely.
Intensely running caused me to become immensely tired.

The second would be a gerund, and the first would be a verbal noun. See, it's modified by an adjective and has a determiner before it. Both are acting as subjects, but one is more noun-like. So no, Tea is mistaken in saying they are essentially nouns.

[boreal ingot]

That's not true either

-ing forms can be present participles

Verbal nouns, or gerunds

[timid gazelle]

they are essentially nouns (gerunds) or adjectives. they are not gerunds if they're adjectives that's true

[boreal ingot]

No, if they're 'adjectives', they're actually a participle acting adjectively. They're different parts of speech. No a participle isn't an adjective, it's acting as/like one

They can also act adverbially

Gerunds aren't nouns, there are things that set them apart from nouns :/

They have nominal function, yes, but they are not nouns

It's just like infinitives aren't nouns but have nominal function

[timid gazelle]

They are absolutely nouns, you can't think of a single sentence where they can act like verbs in any way and they can be always replaced by an "it"

"My understanding is that..."
"The very processing of..."
"Being brave is difficult"
"You need some grounding"

If they were verbs or had any functions of verbs, they could be replcaced with verbs? But they can only be replaced with nouns, because they are in fact nouns

gerund is just a type of a noun. a noun deriving from a verb

but it is a noun

[cloud badge]

So, if im understanding correctly its kind of like, how you would use a verb as a noun?

Hm no nevermind that doesn't quite work either, you can do that without ing. Hm.

[cloud badge]

Infinitives are nouns sometimes tho

[boreal ingot]

They can take adverbs as modifiers, which nouns cannot. They are a category of their own. As I said, they act nominally but aren't nouns

They can take objects

Which nouns also cannot

[cloud badge]

What do you mean by nominally

[weak junco]

Nominally as in slightly or very little

[cloud badge]

Oh ok, i thought they meant 'noun-like' but hmm i still don't get the significance of them acting nominally

[sage quail]

. I'm looking forward to meeting you, meeting being a gerund.
. I'm looking forward to the concert we'll be going to, concert being a noun.
That's what it means to act nominally, the gerund is a verb but functions as a noun.

[boreal ingot]

Continuously viewing pornographic content can have adverse effects on the mind.

Here, 'viewing' has a direct object and is being modified by an adverb; it may be acting like a noun in that it's the subject of a verb, but it also has verbal properties. That's why I'm saying it's a category of its own

[boreal ingot]

No, I did mean acting as a noun

They can act likee nouns, but they aren't nouns

[cloud badge]

What's the difference

If it acts like a noun, it kind of is a noun.... o.o when it acts like one. Ya know what they say, 'If it walks like a bear and it talks like a bear, it probably is a bear' o.o

[cloud badge]

Hm but meeting can be replaced with meet up or other noun, non-ing words, so IDK, to me its a noun, made out of a verb, by using ing. Does that sound right?

[sage quail]

Because it can be replaced doesn't mean that it has the same nature of what it's replacing.

It's just a technicality that you're overthinking.

[cloud badge]

Ha i feel like maybe whoever invented the word gerund was overthinking xp but ok thanks for the explainations yall, i kinda get it c:

[sage quail]

The broken glass could be dangerous if left near kids.
Broken is a participle used as an adjective, it has the same function as an adjective, but it's taken from the verb to break.

It's the exact same thing with gerund.

[cloud badge]

To break is the infinitive, not the plain verb, but ok, i so would it be more correct to say a gerund is when you turn a verb into not-a-verb using ing?

[boreal ingot]

On the lowest level, it's a verb.

Killing

Verbs, what can they do? They can take a subject, they can take an object, they can be modified by adverbs, right? Let's make the verb above have alll these properties

RedSunBlues heartlessly killing the grammar book

As you can see, it has all the properties of a verb. It has a subject (RedSunBlues), an object (the grammar book), and an adverb (heartlessly).

Then, let's go to a higher level. The entire verb phrase above suddenly is acting as a noun

[RedSunBlues heartlessly killing the grammar book] really saddened me.

This is, of course, distinct from verbal nouns, which are less like verbs and more like nouns.

A noun can have a prepositional phrase complementing it, it can have an adjective modifying it, it can have a determiner.

Killing

The brutal killing

The brutal killing of RedSunBlues

^ suddenly, it has almost no verbal properties save for the fact it comes from a verb?

And, on a higher level, it acts as a noun too

[The brutal killing of RedSunBlues] really saddened me.

So here, you can see the distinction between gerunds and verbal nouns. Tea said that anything with -ing is a noun, which was really inaccurate because there are two types of -ing noun-like parts of speech.

For gerunds, I can say they are essentially verbs with nominal function in the sentence. The gerund acts like a verb, but the whole gerund phrase (the gerund with its subject, object, and other modifiers) acts like a noun. So essentially, they are verbs with nominal function.

As for verbal nouns, I will admit I find myself uncertain, and I'd hesitate to call them verb forms, tbh. I don't know what they'd be classified as.

I believe the term verbal noun can extend to other parts, like infinitives, but it can also be more specifically used to describe what I talked about above. I know there's a different term for those but I'm not sure what it was, and I've only heard them being called verbal nouns so that's what I use.

[sage quail]

That's good enough. Here's the technical definition of a verbal, the gerund being one type of verbal:

"In traditional grammar, a verbal is a word derived from a verb that functions in a sentence as a noun or modifier rather than as a verb. "

[cloud badge]

Hmm okok, well, I've had quite enough im on the brink of getting more confused than i was before so im just gonna go with 'if it functions as a noun, and it can be replaced with a noun, imma call it a noun' xD perhaps not technically correct but, i learned something, that's good enough for me xp

[boreal ingot]

Hope my explanation above could help a bit

[cloud badge]

Yes yes, it definitely helped me come to my conclusion there as well, thank u

[sage quail]

Misguided understanding doesn't necessarily mean a wrong application, that's what a native is in most case. Applying things they have a vague understanding of. Just be aware of it.

[boreal ingot]

Yea tbh I could live not knowing what little I know about grammar. It's mainly intuition that I use to write and speak :p

Im no native tho, I just watched too many Minecraft videos from ages 9 to 14

[boreal ingot]

Glad I could help :3

[cloud badge]

Yeah exactly, like, it took me years after college to memorize which was which between nouns adjectives and verbs but i for sure knew how to use them. Definitely interesting digging into this stuff but, yeah, grammar stuff goes deep, Im not quite ready to climb that whole hill yet. So for all the non natives here don't feel bad if you don't know this stuff either.

[sage quail]

A non-native is much more likely to better understand the language than a native, hence the difference between studying and speaking the language.

[acoustic geyser]

What's different between
Need to be V3
Need v-ing?

[verbal heron]

Not if the native is curious

And not if they prefer head to heart

(that's a wrong usage)

[cloud badge]

You need to have done something already, in the past, become v3, for the first. For the second, you're saying you still need to do that thing, v-ing, then later, once it's done, you will have Ved in the past, and, i guess if you did that 3 times, you'll be v3.

[bitter hill]

This thread clarifies it pretty well
https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/s/hiTi2XONCT

[verbal heron]

"for growing" can be replaced by "to grow", no?

[boreal ingot]

Yea I did see that post while researching to make sure im not misinforming lol

[bitter hill]

Yeah

[cloud badge]

You can even just say 'they grow gmfs' and have the same meaning, no gerund, no infinitive, no participables

[bitter hill]

Basically scratch the 'verbal noun' and opt for verb vs noun classification

[verbal heron]

alright

[verbal heron]

Will "They can be used for the growth of ..." have different connotation?

[boreal ingot]

I found this message the most useful personally

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/ssgkiy/comment/hwz8aqv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Which response would you say I should read?

Ngl this stuff as it is makes sense to me

[cloud badge]

Yeah, the can implies it might not be their intended use, and that that use doesn't help anything besides the growth of the gmfs, 'they grow gmfs' is more vague, there could be many other uses, but the primary use is growing gmfs

[bitter hill]

I think this is the clearest explanation
https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/s/ppDbUEqe6P

[eternal cobalt]

Hey @verbal heron

[verbal heron]

yes

[eternal cobalt]

You said to go here.

So what level did you last test at?

[verbal heron]

yes, you said you wanna help people if they have problems with English, that's the purpose of this channel

[eternal cobalt]

I know.

[verbal heron]

I never appeared in any major English test

[eternal cobalt]

If you were to guess which level do you think you are at?

[verbal heron]

It would be just a conjecture of what level I am in

Maybe at B1-B2 in writing

[eternal cobalt]

What is your native language

[eternal cobalt]

Ok that's good

[verbal heron]

It's Hindi

[eternal cobalt]

That's good.

[verbal heron]

yea, sufficient for articulation

[eternal cobalt]

Do you know what much obliged means?

@verbal heron

[verbal heron]

Why?

[eternal cobalt]

Just seeing what you know.

[verbal heron]

Well, I understand this and can use it in a sentence

[eternal cobalt]

Thanks much obliged.

Is how I use it

Now let's see if you understand metaphors, try this. I only see that once in a blue moon.

[verbal heron]

no, if it's not an informal way to use that

[eternal cobalt]

I don't comprehend what you mean

[cloud badge]

Isn't much obliged synonymous with 'youre welcome'

[eternal cobalt]

It's formal not informal

[cloud badge]

As opposed to thank you?

[eternal cobalt]

Yes basically means I owe you. Basically when someone would say thanks I owe you.

Obliged means that you're obligated to do it.

[cloud badge]

Oh, ok, yeah, your phrasing with the thank you was just a lil confusing

[eternal cobalt]

Like you have to do it

[eternal cobalt]

Like thanks much obliged.

Do you know what Synonymous means?

[cloud badge]

Like person 1 'thanks' person 2 'much obliged'

[eternal cobalt]

No

person 1 would say thanks much obliged

Person 2 says you're welcome

[cloud badge]

Hm, but you say much obliged when you are happy/ honored/ feel compelled/obliged to do a favor for someone or such.

[eternal cobalt]

Well yeah it means I'm in service to you.

I'm required to pay you back

So if someone does a favour you say thanks much obliged

[cloud badge]

Like, 'go fetch me that water' 'absolutely' 'thank you' 'much obliged, im happy to have quenched your thirst'

[eternal cobalt]

Yeah but we don't really say quenched we say I'm happy to get you a water.

[cloud badge]

Uh, yes we do

If im talking fancy i say that

Im a native speaker

[eternal cobalt]

And we don't say go fetch me water we can you grab me a water

[eternal cobalt]

I'm just saying how in America we would say it

We don't speak fancy really

[verbal heron]

Does one really say a water?

[cloud badge]

Uh yeah, usually, you can say either, but usually people who say much obliged use other fancy words so i thought it was fitting

[eternal cobalt]

Yes we say can you grab me a water

[eternal cobalt]

It's common to say much obliged

[cloud badge]

As a replacement of your welcome

[eternal cobalt]

Exactly

[cloud badge]

When you're happy to do something

[eternal cobalt]

Yes now you get it.

[cloud badge]

Yeah, you don't tell someone else that they are much obliged.

You can but itd be kind of rude, like your telling them how they should feel (obliged)

[eternal cobalt]

Let's try this word. Synonymous

[eternal cobalt]

That would be pretty rude if you tell someone that they have to do something for you.

Because you're not required to do anything for anybody and you can say no if you don't want to do something for somebody

[verbal heron]

Won't people in different regions express that differently tho?

[eternal cobalt]

It's pretty common I've been across America

Grab me a water is a common way to ask someone for water

[cloud badge]

If im a doctor, im obliged to help my patients. When they thank me, i say 'much obliged'

[verbal heron]

Then there is nothing for one to really worry about it, at first one may seem to people as eccentric

[cloud badge]

Cuz im happy and compelled to help them

[eternal cobalt]

I would say thanks doc if you're talking to your doctor

[boreal ingot]

Google says it means very greatful. So yeah it would make sense to have it with 'thanks'

[cloud badge]

Yeah, and they'd reply, 'much obliged' or 'youre welcome' they're pretty synanomous

[boreal ingot]

It's like 'thanks, I'm really grateful'

[eternal cobalt]

If you're in a clinic the nurse will say to you when the doctor is about to be in they will say to you "doc will be with you in a sec"

[boreal ingot]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/much-obliged

[cloud badge]

It's more like 'im greatful to have helped you' aka 'youre welcome to my help'

[eternal cobalt]

@cloud badge If you're in a clinic the nurse will say to you when the doctor is about to be in they will say to you "doc will be with you in a sec"

Sec is short for second

[cloud badge]

Yup, ill say thank you, and then the nurse would reply 'much obliged' as they were obliged to give you that information

[boreal ingot]

Afaik it's just a way to say thanks

Google seems to agree

[eternal cobalt]

More like you would say "thanks much obliged" and the nurse would say "you're welcome"

[cloud badge]

Its like saying thanks back to a thanks

[eternal cobalt]

Not really

[cloud badge]

No, you don't tell the nurse what they are obliged to do, and what were you so obliged to do?

[eternal cobalt]

Like it means thanks and the much obliged is added for more respect

Like I respect your time

You're saying you're obliged to give thanks to the nurse

[cloud badge]

Sorry, i assure you you have it backwards

[eternal cobalt]

I speak English as my main language.

[cloud badge]

Same

[eternal cobalt]

I test at a c2 level

[boreal ingot]

I think you have it backwards tbh

[eternal cobalt]

So I know a bit about english.

[cloud badge]

Same

[boreal ingot]

You all it's not a competition. We're just trying to understand 'much obliged'

[eternal cobalt]

So this is your first time learning the phrase when I use it a lot.

So it may be difficult to understand at first

What's your mother tounge?

Basically when you say much obliged you're thanking someone for their help

Like much appreciated

[cloud badge]

You don't need to be rude, you're mistaken, it's an easy mistake because obliged can be used in many ways, but when you say 'i felt much obliged to help you, you don't need to thank me' you are saying you're welcome and greatful to have helped

[eternal cobalt]

You're welcome is a response to much obliged

[verbal heron]

Who says natives don't make errors?

[cloud badge]

Much obliged, in other words, is the same as saying 'i felt very obligated anyway'

[eternal cobalt]

I use the phrase

[bitter hill]

?

[eternal cobalt]

And I understand English with outstanding fluency

[bitter hill]

It means 'I am obliged to you'

[cloud badge]

That is not the same thing

[eternal cobalt]

So have you ever said much appreciated

?

[bitter hill]

Much obliged?

Google it

[eternal cobalt]

Google gets me meanings wrong all the time

Better to use a dictionary

[verbal heron]

I don't watch English media tbh

[bitter hill]

Yes that's what I mean

Google -> dictionary entry

[eternal cobalt]

Have you ever said thanks very much?

[verbal heron]

but the dictionary labells those as old fashioned

[cloud badge]

Much obliged, shortened from 'i was very obliged' aka 'i felt obligated' is not the same as saying 'i AM obliged'

[eternal cobalt]

I am in your debt I've heard people use that too

[verbal heron]

Nah, just maybe it's in common usage there

[bitter hill]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/much-obliged-i-am-obliged-to-you-etc

[eternal cobalt]

Like thanks I am in your debt

Use oxford

Dictionary

[verbal heron]

who would buy that behemoth

[cloud badge]

You could reply to 'i am in you're debt' with 'much obliged'. Its basically saying 'oh, there's no need for a show of gratitude, i wanted to do it already, so im glad you gave me the opportunity'