Hot answers tagged

51

Not much fun means "not very enjoyable". Not very funny means "not very humourous" Not much funny doesn't mean anything.


25

no more can have the same the meaning as no longer and, up until 1840, it was more widely used. Here is a typical example: He instantly determined to be no more a slave. - The works of Hannah More, Hannah More, 1804 We are no more in the 20th century. This sentence is therefore grammatically correct, though dated. There is a further problem: no more is ...


23

Some English speakers feel that '100 per cent' is overused as an expression, especially in connection with things that cannot be measured. For example, you couldn't say a pronunciation was '87% correct' - how could that even be measured? But in colloquial speech, '100%' is often used to mean 'completely', and '99%' (or sometimes '99.99%') to mean 'almost'. ...


20

Understandable? Yes. Almost all English natives would understand your intended meaning. Correct? I'd say so. Some might argue that it should be an adverb like "fully", but if it's correct to say that something is 100% correct, I don't know why it wouldn't be correct to use that as an identifier. Proper? Not really. There's nothing "wrong&...


16

No. The three sentences all mean different things. Half of an apple is eaten means there was one half of an apple, and all of that one-half is eaten. Picture someone cutting an apple into two halves; one half has been put aside and is not being discussed. The other half is what we are talking about, and it is entirely eaten. An apple is half eaten means ...


16

The original sentence is definitely incorrect. The best way to rephrase depends on what you are trying to convey. I think what they were trying to say was There were sports for boys only, which was not much fun for girls. meaning that it was not a pleasant/enjoyable situation for the girls and they did not get to have fun playing sports. However, if they ...


10

‘100% correct’ is grammatically correct in this context, though the organization of the sentence is a bit atypical for many more formal dialects of English and may be difficult for some people to understand without having to think a bit (I would instead restructure things as suggested at the end of Astralbee’s answer as that resolves both issues). However, ...


8

The set phrase "just about to" is very widely used, and is generally used about time. You use when something occurred moments before you had planned to do something. I was just about to have lunch when the doorbell rang "almost about to" and "nearly about to* are, according to this NGram graph, much less common. They can also be ...


8

"Sometimes" obviously means some times, so it wouldn't make sense to use that negatively the way your example suggests. When used this way as an adverb of frequency, 'sometimes' sits in the middle between never and always, so you wouldn't just negate it - you'd use a better adverb. "Some" can by default mean 'not all'. For example, "...


7

This sentence is wrong because it contains a double negative: "She hasn't never been to London." Can I use the word "ever" in this kind of sentence? Yes! She hasn't ever been to London. Don't ever lie to me! Not ever = never But not ever is much less common, and you cannot move it to the front as you can with never. Never have I ...


7

In much X, X has to be a non-countable noun. Funny is an adjective (not even a noun), so it doesn't work. If you are thinking funny is related to fun - the meanings are actually slightly different. Fun means something is pleasurable (you like or enjoy doing it) Funny means something makes you laugh (you may or may not want to do it, though) and is also ...


7

When we say "verb the object adjective", we mean "make the object adjective by verbing". "Boil the kettle dry" means "make the kettle dry by boiling", just as "paint the door red" means "make the door red by painting". When we use an adverb, like "verb the object adverb", we mean "do ...


6

Welcome to English Language Learners. In this sentence, the phrase, 'more carefully than I do', is an adverbial phrase. It can't be considered an adverbial clause because it doesn't have its own subject and verb. It can't be considered an adverbial complement because it's not necessary for the meaning of the verb, 'to drive'. An example of an adverbial ...


5

Your first interpretation is correct - he kicked the door shut. In this context, "to" is used as an adverb describing the result of the action, i.e. that the door is now closed. From Merriam-Webster: to adverb 3a: into contact especially with the frame —used of a door or a window // the door snapped to


5

Native speaker here, it seems like nonsense, but as usual with English, it's all about context. Here's a realistic conversation you might hear that is technically incorrect, but does not sound "off" to other native speakers. (h/t to @PatrickT) "Hey, check out this article." "Man, that's really entertaining! I loved it!" "...


5

There is flexibility in the placement of an adverb. For example, all of these are fine: The government took action immediately. Immediately, the government took action. The government took immediate action (using adjective instead of adverb) However, with your example, you have the qualifying phrase "...after the unexpected tragedy". You cannot ...


4

While English is usually very strict about word order, when it comes to adverbs and the verb they modify, it can go either way. You can say "we worked tirelessly" or "we tirelessly worked". Both mean the same thing. Without doing a statistical analysis, I think we usually put the adverb after the verb. "I worked tirelessly", &...


4

Yes, "up" takes on the same meaning as "on". However, this statement is likely made by someone on a lower floor, referring to Tom who is on a higher floor. For example, if I am on the 3rd floor, it is natural for me to say "Tom is up on the 22nd floor now". So, it is fine to say "He is down on the 10th floor" if you ...


4

Here the word "to" means "into contact especially with the frame — used of a door or a window" (Merriam Webster)


4

Instead of your "We are no more in the 20th century" I would suggest we should use the sentence "We are not in the 20th century any more" (the 20th century has ended) as an alternative to "We are no longer in the 20th century" (we are not in this time period) Why we may be tempted to use " more" in the way you ...


4

It's a colloquial, idiomatic usage. The commas you suggest are unnecessary because "so" is acting as just an intensifier; the meaning is unchanged from "You did do it." The same construction often uses "too." "I didn't eat your sandwich." "You did too eat it!" "Did not!" "Did too!"


4

I've not yet tasted it or I've not tasted it yet imply that you expect to do so quite soon. Probably someone has asked how you like a present of food or drink they recently gave you. I've never tasted it means that you have not tried that kind of food in your entire life. Never yet is grammatically valid, but I think it would only be used when the speaker ...


3

The whole sentence at that link is The fault had come from the beneath and it was not rectified. That is not idiomatic to me. "Beneath" is a preposition and not a noun, so it shouldn't have an article like "the". These two sentences are idiomatic: The fault had come from the bottom. and The fault had come from beneath. It may be that ...


3

How precise do you need to be? I'd just say The circle is in the top-left corner of the rectangle. If I needed to be precise then I'd set up a system of coordinates. The expression "off to" is used in the phrase "off to one side". This has a negative meaning of "not central". The garden has a lawn in the middle and a tree off ...


3

The difference is in what is implied. I have little money to buy a car suggests something like so I might not be able to find one I can afford, or so it won't be a very good one. I have too little money to buy a car implies there is no chance I will find one I can afford. The third option, mentioned in the comments, I have a little money to buy a car ...


3

'Loudly' can mean "ostentatiously; conspicuously; showily; glaringly", but its primary meaning is related to sound. You could use it in your context, it might confuse a minority of people and cause some others to reach for the dictionary, but it is interesting use of language. Logically then, you could say "he loudly pointed out the shark"...


3

There is no contradiction in the answers to your exercises. The same sentence can be written in two ways: Anna probably isn't going to be in class tomorrow. BUT Anna is probably not going to be in class tomorrow. If you use a contraction, it is impossible to put probably after the auxiliary is (which is the rule) and before the negation. About these ...


3

In a friendly situation, "100%" is often used in place of "completely" or "absolutely" or "perfect". For example, calling a hamburger "100% delicious". It's a funny metaphor suggesting that a deliciousness-meter would bang the needle at the far side. People might even say "110% delicious". But in a ...


3

Maybe you're mixing up two things here: There's the adjective "novel", which has a similar meaning to "new". On the other hand, there's the noun "novel", which means a type of narrative fiction. In connection to the noun "novel", there's the adjective "novelistical". "novelly" is the adverb form of ...


2

No, it isn't redundant. There are many unfinished works which will never be finished for a variety of reasons. For example, Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. Saying something is unfinished merely tells its current state but says nothing about its future. Saying something is yet to be finished implies that it will be finished at some point in the future. "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible